w/c 06/07/25

ORDO

Dies	06 SUN	07 MON	08 TUE	09 WED	10 THU	11 FRI	12 SAT	13 SUN
Officium	Pretiosissimi Sanguinis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi	Ss. Cyrilli et Methodii Pont. et Conf.	S. Elisabeth Reg. Portugaliæ Viduæ	Feria IV infra Hebd IV post Octavam Pentecostes	Ss. Septem Fratrum Mm, ac Rufinæ et Secundæ Vm et Mm	S. Pii I Papæ et Martyris	S. Joannis Gualberti Abbatis	Dominica V Post Pentecosten
CLASSIS	Duplex I	Duplex	Semiduplex	Simplex	Semiduplex	Simplex	Duplex	Semiduplex
Color*	Rubeum	Albus	Albus	Viridis	Rubeum	Rubeum	Albus	Viridis
MISSA	Redemísti nos	Sacerdótes tui	Cognóvi	Dóminus	Laudáte, púeri	Státuit ei	Os justi	Exáudi, Dómine
Orationes	2a. In Octava Ss. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli 3a. Dominica IV Post Pentecosten 4a. Die V infra Octavam in Vistatione BMV	NA	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	2a. A cunctis 3a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiæ	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	2a. Ss. Naboris et Felicis Mm	2a. S. Anacleti Papæ et Martyris 3a. Dominica IV Post Pentecosten 4a. A cunctis nos
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	omit Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva

Veritas Vincit

It recalls mottos like “Veritas vos liberabit” (“The truth will set you free” — John 8:32), and “Christus vincit” (“Christ conquers”), used in ancient acclamations and traditional hymns. Thus, Veritas Vincit speaks both to the task at hand—truthful reporting and analysis—and to the larger Christian vision: that fidelity to truth, though it may cost us everything, ultimately participates in the victory of Christ.

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

Grace and peace be with you from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Over the past week, our apostolic work Selsey Substack and Nuntiatoria have traced many of the lines along which the current civil and ecclesiastical order is fracturing. What we observe is not merely cultural decay, but a deliberate repudiation of both nature and grace—an apostasy clothed in legislative robes, a moral inversion advanced through digital catechisms, and a Church too often silent, complicit, or confused. Against this, we set the lamp of truth, not to curse the darkness but to rekindle conviction and courage in Christ’s little flock.

Conscience on Trial: The Cost of Speaking Plainly
The case of Richard Cooke, the West Midlands Police Federation chairman removed for defending his members against the sweeping accusations of institutional racism, epitomises a growing tyranny of thought. The modern ideological litmus tests—DEI trainings, compelled affirmations, and internal speech codes—do not merely chill speech; they invert the very mission of civic institutions. When truth is sacrificed on the altar of institutional appeasement, the faithful must ask: *who then will stand for the innocent, the maligned, and the voiceless?

Likewise, the vindication of “Billboard Chris” in Australia, who faced sanctions for biological truth-telling, reminds us that Christian witness in the public square—though branded “hate” by the regulators of discourse—is still capable of cutting through the fog when allied to courage and prayer. These cases are not isolated but symptomatic of a regime increasingly allergic to nature itself.

Abortion and the Legal Eclipse of Innocence
The most chilling development has been the UK Parliament’s advance of Clause 191: the effective decriminalisation of self-induced abortion at any stage. This is not merely a tragic political defeat; it is a declaration that unborn children possess no legal protection even at the threshold of birth. Under cover of “compassion,” the amendment extinguishes the concept of personhood from the womb.

We must grieve not only the lives lost, but the erosion of public reason itself. When law enshrines death as a right and denies the reality of human nature, society itself is turned against the image of God in man. This, beloved, is the fruit of decades of sentimentalism unmoored from objective truth. It is the rejection of the Cross as the measure of love, replaced by a counterfeit mercy which demands no repentance and sanctions no sin.

Institutions Without Integrity
Our reports have also uncovered the double standard governing public discourse. Ofcom’s selective enforcement against GB News, the police’s politicised silence regarding demonstrators praying or protesting peacefully, and the EHRC’s post-Supreme Court foot-dragging on the definition of “sex” all point to a crisis of legitimacy. These are not signs of a healthy democracy—but of a governing class enthralled by a secularised soteriology, in which moral authority is claimed without truth, and dissent is punished with bureaucratic cruelty.

The tragedy is that many churches have chosen accommodation over resistance. Where once the shepherd’s rod protected the flock from wolves, now it too often comforts the wolves and lectures the sheep on inclusion.

The Church in Exile: Our Apostolic Mandate
Yet the Church is never without hope. In the shadows of cultural collapse, a remnant remains—faithful men and women, young and old, returning to the wisdom of the ages. Our reflection on the Fourth Sunday Post Pentecost, guided by the traditional liturgical authors, reminds us that Christ teaches His disciples not merely to withstand the night of this world, but to cast their nets anew in obedience and trust.

This is our task: to teach, to warn, to comfort, and to witness. Nuntiatoria is not a newsroom, but a herald’s trumpet. It proclaims not fashionable commentary, but the unchanging Gospel applied to the shifting sands of the present moment.

Editorial Resolve and Ecclesial Duty
In reviewing our editorial output this past week, I commend the clarity and charity with which truth has been spoken. But I also charge all who labour in this apostolate—writers, editors, readers, and intercessors—to deepen their commitment. Let us not merely expose darkness, but form hearts. Let us catechise as we critique. Let us root our every article not in outrage or despair, but in fidelity to the Word made flesh, and in reverence for the Immaculate Heart of Mary, through whom the light of victory shall dawn.

Let us also recall: we do not fight against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12), but against lies enthroned as law, and ideologies posing as compassion. Our weapons are truth, prayer, sacrament, and sacrifice. They are sufficient.

May the Precious Blood of Jesus, whose feast we celebrate this week, purify our nations and convert hearts. May the Holy Ghost raise up defenders of life and liberty. And may we, the children of Tradition, not grow weary in well-doing.

With paternal blessing and enduring affection, I remain 🔝

---

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

The Time after Pentecost in the Tridentine Rite
The Time after Pentecost in the Tridentine liturgical calendar, sometimes called the “Season after Pentecost,” corresponds to what is now known in the modern Roman Rite as “Ordinary Time.” Yet unlike the postconciliar terminology, the Tridentine designation is not “ordinary” in tone or theology. It is profoundly mystical, drawing the Church into a deepening participation in the life of the Holy Ghost poured out upon the Mystical Body at Pentecost.

A Season of Fulfilment and Mission
The Time after Pentecost is the longest of the liturgical seasons, extending from the Monday after the Octave of Pentecost to the final Saturday before the First Sunday of Advent. It represents the age of the Church — the time between the descent of the Holy Ghost and the Second Coming of Christ. Where Advent looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and Easter celebrated His triumph, the Time after Pentecost lives out His indwelling. It is the season of sanctification, corresponding to the Holy Ghost in the economy of salvation, just as Advent and Christmas reflect the Father’s sending, and Lent and Easter the Son’s redeeming work.

Dom Prosper Guéranger writes that “the mystery of Pentecost embraces the whole duration of the Church’s existence” — a mystery of fruitfulness, guidance, and spiritual warfare. It is not a neutral stretch of ‘green vestments’ but a continuation of the supernatural drama of the Church militant, sustained by the fire of divine charity.

The Green of Growth — But Also of Struggle
Liturgically, green dominates this time, symbolising hope and spiritual renewal. Yet the Masses of the Sundays after Pentecost contain numerous reminders that the Christian life is not passive growth but an active battle. Readings from St. Paul’s epistles dominate, especially exhortations to moral purity, perseverance, and readiness for the day of judgment. The Gospels often feature Christ’s miracles, parables of the Kingdom, or calls to vigilance — all designed to awaken souls from spiritual sloth.

Fr. Pius Parsch notes that “the Sundays after Pentecost are dominated by two great thoughts: the growth of the Church and the interior life of the Christian.” These twin aspects — ecclesial expansion and individual sanctity — are ever present in the collects and readings, pointing to the fruit of Pentecost as the Church’s leavening power in the world.

The Numbering and Shape of the Season
In the Tridentine Missal, Sundays are numbered “after Pentecost,” beginning with the Sunday immediately following the octave day (Trinity Sunday stands apart). The exact number of these Sundays varies depending on the date of Easter. Since the final Sundays are taken from the “Sundays after Epiphany” not used earlier in the year, the readings and prayers of the last Sundays are drawn from both ends of the temporal cycle. This produces a subtle eschatological tone in the final weeks — especially from the 24th Sunday after Pentecost onward — anticipating the Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

In this way, the Time after Pentecost includes both the lived reality of the Church’s mission and the urgency of her final consummation. The Kingdom is already present, but not yet fully manifest.

The Role of Feasts and the Saints
The richness of the season is also punctuated by numerous feasts: of Our Lady (e.g., the Visitation, the Assumption), of the angels (e.g., St. Michael), of apostles and martyrs, confessors and virgins. Unlike Advent or Lent, which are penitential in tone, the Time after Pentecost includes joyful celebrations that model Christian holiness in diverse vocations. The saints are the mature fruit of Pentecost, witnesses to the Spirit’s indwelling.

As Dom Guéranger says, this season “is the longest of all in the liturgical year: its length admits of its being considered as the image of eternity.” It teaches that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not given for a moment, but for a lifetime of growth in grace — and for the eternal life to come.

Conclusion: A Time of Interiorisation and Apostolic Zeal
The Time after Pentecost is not a liturgical afterthought, but the climax of the year — the age of the Church, the time in which we now live. Every soul is invited to be a continuation of the Incarnation through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The sacraments, the Mass, and the feasts of the saints all nourish this divine life, which began in Baptism and is ordered to glory.

Thus, the Time after Pentecost is not simply the Church’s “green season,” but her most fruitful and missionary phase — a time of living in the Spirit, bearing His fruits, and hastening toward the return of the King. 🔝

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ

(Observed on the First Sunday of July)

“You were not redeemed with corruptible things… but with the Precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.” (1 Peter 1:18–19)

The Precious Blood of Jesus is not merely a symbol, nor merely a theological theme. It is the price of our salvation, the ink with which the New Covenant was signed, and the living fountain of grace from the Heart of the Redeemer. On this feast, the Church bids us fix our gaze anew upon the Blood poured out for us—not as a past event only, but as a present reality made sacramentally present at every Holy Mass.

Devotion to the Precious Blood is fundamentally Eucharistic. For it is in the chalice, consecrated by the words of the Savior, that His Blood becomes truly present under the veil of wine. And in this sacramental mystery, we are not mere observers: we are participants in the outpouring of love that began in Gethsemane, surged through the scourging pillar, and streamed from the Cross at Calvary.

The Blood of Christ is a language. It speaks better things than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24)—not vengeance, but mercy; not condemnation, but reconciliation. It testifies to divine justice and divine mercy perfectly united: a justice that does not overlook sin, and a mercy that spares the sinner by absorbing the cost into God Himself.

This feast reminds us of three essential spiritual truths:

1. The Cost of Our Redemption
Too often we domesticate the Cross. But the Precious Blood confronts us with the real cost of sin. Salvation is not cheap grace. Christ’s Blood is infinitely precious because it is the Blood of the God-Man, poured out voluntarily to ransom us from death. Each drop cries out: This is how much you are loved.

2. The Power of the Blood
The Precious Blood has not lost its power. In the confessional, it washes the soul clean. In the Mass, it is offered anew for the living and the dead. In temptation, it is a shield; in trial, a strength; in spiritual warfare, a weapon. We must invoke it often: “By Thy Precious Blood, O Jesus, save us and the whole world!”

3. The Call to Imitation
To venerate the Precious Blood is to embrace sacrifice. Christ poured Himself out; so must we. Love, if it is genuine, always bleeds—it always costs. We are called to offer our bodies, our desires, our sufferings, as a “living sacrifice” (Rom 12:1), united to His.

In a world that trivializes sin and denies sacrifice, this feast is a summons back to spiritual reality. We are not our own. We were bought at a price (1 Cor 6:20). That price is the Precious Blood of Jesus.

Let us therefore not let this feast pass as a mere pious observance. Let it be for us a spiritual renewal—a deeper entry into the mystery of the Cross, a more fervent participation in the Eucharist, and a more grateful, obedient love for the One who gave all for us.

“Blood of Christ, without which there is no forgiveness—save us.”
— From the Litany of the Precious Blood 🔝

---

Missalettes (Corpus Christi/Sacred Heart)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
“Launch out into the deep” (Luke 5:4)

Today’s Gospel invites us aboard the bark of Peter, tossed gently on the lake of Gennesaret, where the Eternal Word teaches the crowd from the boat. Christ, the Divine Fisherman, looks not only to the multitude on the shore, but beyond them—to every soul throughout the ages, especially those wearied by fruitless labour and disappointed hopes.

The Weariness of Labour
Peter and his companions have worked all night and caught nothing. How many times in life does this scene echo in our own hearts? We labour—perhaps in prayer, in penance, in evangelisation, in our duties—but see no fruit. The nets are empty. The world seems indifferent or even hostile. Like Peter, we are tempted to say: “Master, we have toiled all the night.”

And yet, it is precisely here—in our exhaustion and powerlessness—that Christ steps in. He does not chide Peter for failure; He does not demand a report of measurable success. Instead, He says one simple word: “Launch out into the deep”—Duc in altum. It is not success Christ seeks, but obedience.

Obedience and the Miracle of Grace
Peter, in his weakness, replies, “At Thy word, I will let down the net.” This is the moment of grace. Obedience to the Divine Word opens the floodgates. The nets fill. The boats sink with the weight of unexpected abundance. It is not Peter’s skill but his surrender that draws in the catch.

This is the law of the spiritual life: not strength, but surrender; not cleverness, but confidence in God. When we act at Christ’s word—when we obey in faith, despite weariness or apparent failure—then He acts, and the result exceeds all we could have imagined.

Humility and Mission
Faced with divine power, Peter falls to his knees: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” The true response to divine favour is not pride but repentance. The closer a soul comes to the light of God, the more it sees its own shadows. But Christ does not withdraw. Instead, He lifts Peter up, not only to peace, but to mission: “From henceforth, thou shalt catch men.”

So too with us. If we are faithful, Christ will draw us to Himself, not for our comfort alone, but that we may share in His apostolic work. Every grace received carries within it a call—to bear witness, to offer ourselves for the salvation of souls, to become fishers of men in our own corner of the world.

Groaning for Glory
The Epistle reminds us that all creation groans, waiting for redemption. We too groan inwardly as we await the full revealing of God’s glory. But this groaning is not defeat. It is the cry of hope. Suffering borne in faith becomes the seed of eternal joy. Our little obedience, our hidden fidelity, our unseen tears—these are the bait and net by which God gathers His children home.

Conclusion: The Lord of the Deep
Let us then obey the voice of Christ. Let us launch again into the deep—into prayer, into sacrifice, into love of souls. Even when we feel small, tired, or unworthy, let us cast out the net at His word. The world is the sea, the Gospel is the net, and our Lord still speaks from Peter’s boat. If we listen and obey, we too shall see the miracle of grace, and become instruments of salvation for others.

Amen. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

by the Revd Dr Robert Wilson PhD (Cantab), Old Roman Apostolate UK

Precious Blood/Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first and of the other that were crucified with him. But after they were come to Jesus when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true.

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as commemorating the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost. In today’s Gospel we hear from the climax of St. John’s Passion narrative in which Jesus, having taken the vinegar that had been offered to him said “it is consummated”. On saying these words he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. It was important that the bodies of those who were being crucified that day did not remain on the cross (since the next day was the Sabbath) so the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken. This would ensure that they would be dead and so they could be taken away. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the two others who were crucified with him. In Jesus’ case the soldiers found that he was already dead so it was not necessary to break his legs. Instead one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, drawing forth blood and water. This is attested by the eyewitness testimony of St. John, the Beloved disciple himself.

This scene works on two levels. At one level it is an historical account that attests that Jesus had actually died. The crurifragium (the breaking of the legs) of the one who was crucified is an attested custom which was used by the Roman soldiers to ensure that those who were being crucified that day actually died. In Jesus’ case it was not actually necessary because he had already died. This was shown when one of the soldiers pierced his side bringing forth blood and water. This truth rested on the testimony of an eyewitness who could be trusted, St. John. In the other Gospels the Passion scene is a distant scene, since though the accounts of St. Mark and St. Luke are based on eyewitness testimony they are not themselves the work of an eyewitness. By contrast in St. John’s Gospel the Passion scene is described by one of the Jesus’ most intimate disciples, who had leant on his breast at the Last Supper, who had followed him to the high priest’s house and had witnessed the last hours at the Cross and to whom Jesus had entrusted the care of his mother. It is therefore of unique historical value because it is the narrative, not of an outsider, but an intimate insider.

But the scene also works on a deeper level as well in that it brings out the theological significance of the death of Jesus. R. G. Collingwood described history as the “inside of the event.” In other words what distinguishes a true historical writing from a mere chronicle is that it brings out the significance of what is truly going on in the events that take place. It therefore follows that the best historian is one who is able to see the event as it would have appeared to those who were taking part in it. It is even better when (as in the case of St. John’s Gospel) we have the testimony of one who had actually witnessed the events themselves, but is now writing to bring out their deeper significance.

The piercing of Jesus’ side by the soldiers bringing forth a flow of blood and water not only testified to the fact that Jesus was genuinely dead. It also showed that salvation came by the atoning blood of Jesus. As the great Passiontide hymn has it

There whilst he hung, His sacred side
By soldier’s spear was open wide,
To cleanse us in the precious flood
Of water mingled with his blood.

St. Augustine put it like this: “The Evangelist speaketh carefully. He saith not that he smote the side, nor yet that he wounded it, nor yet anything else, but pierced it, to fling wide the entrance unto life, whence flow the Sacraments of the Church, those sacraments without which there is no entrance unto the life which is life indeed. That blood which was shed there was shed for the remission of sins, that water is the water that mantleth in the cup of salvation. Therein are we washed, and thereof do we drink…. And here we have the Second Adam bowing his head, and the deep sleep of death falling upon him on the Cross and he sleepeth, that the Lord God may take a thing out of his side, and may make thereof a wife for him. O what a death was this, which quickeneth the dead! What is cleaner than his blood? What is more health giving than his wounding?… A Redeemer came and paid the price for them. He shed his blood, and at that cost shed the world. Ye ask what he bought? Look at what he paid and ye shall see what he bought. Christ’s blood was the price. What was his blood worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all men? They are very unthankful for his redemption, or very proud, who say it is only precious enough to buy the Africans, or that they themselves are so precious that it was shed only for them. Let there be an end to such conceit, and to such vainglory. What he paid, he paid for all.”

Let us make our own the words of today’s collect:

O Almighty and everlasting God, who hast appointed thine only begotten Son to be the redeemer of the world, and hast been pleased to be reconciled unto us by his blood, grant us, we beseech thee, so to use this solemn worship of the price of our salvation, that the power thereof may keep us from all things that may hurt us, and the purchase of the same may gladden us for ever hereafter in heaven, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen. 🔝

Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject in hope; because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

In today’s epistle, we hear from St. Paul’s great exposition to the Romans of how the sufferings of this present age are not worthy to be compared with the glory of the world to come. The whole creation has been subjected to corruption, decay and death as a consequence of the fall of man. But the good news of the gospel is that this is not the last word and the whole creation will eventually be delivered from corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. “For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now; and not only it, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body; in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

But why does a God who we say is all good and all powerful allow suffering and sin in this world? Some would see the existence of suffering in this world as evidence that there is no God who is all powerful and all good, no justice and no judge. There is simply the chance that produces variation, and the necessity that ensures that the strong will triumph over the weak. According to this view, we can know how, but we can never know why disease and suffering occur. But the question to this view should then be that we cannot recognise something as evil unless we have some idea of good to compare it with, for evil is the absence or privation of goodness, just as darkness is the absence of light and injustice the absence of justice. If there were no creatures with eyes we would not know what light was, or if there were no creatures with ears we would not know what sound was. The fact that we regard disease and suffering as bad therefore suggests not the unreality of God and absolute goodness, but our implicit recognition that there is much in the world that is not as it ought to be. When viewed in this light, the atheist or materialist worldview that uses the existence of suffering in this world to deny God and ultimate goodness is not as coherent as it may look at first sight.

On the other side is the pantheist who says that evil and suffering are an illusion, for the creation is divine and so nothing is ultimately really wrong. Evil and suffering, according to this view, are an illusion, or rather it is our own limited human perspective that makes evil and suffering seem to us to be real. Once the unreality of material phenomena is recognised, the chance that produces variation and the necessity that ensures that the strong triumph over the weak can now be seen to make sense, for whatever is must be right when looked at from a divine perspective. But the question to this view is that it does not do justice to morality, for it produces a world in which the cruelty of the caste system can ultimately be justified, for it is only our limited human perspective that makes it seem unjust to us. If for the atheist or materialist the existence of evil and suffering shows that all our hopes are ultimately doomed to disappointment, for the pantheist who sees evil and suffering as an illusion, if we did but know it all our hopes are already fulfilled.

Ultimately, the atheist denial of the spiritual realm, of God and of ultimate goodness, and the pantheist denial of the material realm, of evil and of suffering, have far more in common than may appear at first sight. In neither worldview is there any real reason to question the status quo in which the strong and powerful triumph over the weak and vulnerable. The atheist says that because evil and suffering exist, God and ultimate goodness do not exist, while the pantheist says that because the creation is divine, material phenomenon are unreal and so evil and suffering are ultimately an illusion.

A different vision to these two worldviews was found in ancient Israel. They refused to accept the world as it is, for the world as it is now is not the world as it ought to be. They had faith in God who is all powerful and all good, yet they recognised that there is much evil and suffering in the world. Instead of accepting the status quo in which the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, Moses responded to the call of God to lead them out of slavery through the wilderness to the promised land. When they fell away in that promised land, and sought to follow the ways of the world around them, the prophets sought to speak truth to power and recall them to faithfulness to the covenant that they had made with God. In contrast to the kings who exercised power, the prophets preached righteousness. Since the world even in that promised land was still out of joint with its Creator the prophets looked forward to a time when God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven, when the eyes of the blind would be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped, and the lion and the lamb would live together.

The Christian faith is that in Jesus Christ this hope found fulfilment. Future in its fullness the Kingdom of God was now being manifested through its proclaimer, in his words and mighty works. The existence of sin and suffering showed a world that was not in harmony with its Creator, and so in Jesus Christ the Creator himself was at work in reconciling the world to himself. He did not provide an answer to the problem of evil and suffering in this world at the level of theory. Rather, he actually in his life healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, made the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak and preached the gospel (the good news of the Kingdom of God) to the poor. When the final clash with the powers that be in this world inevitably came, he took the evil of the world’s hatred upon himself and somehow subsumed it into good. He rose from the dead, triumphing over death by death and so became the first fruits of them that slept. As St. Paul put it to the Corinthians, this faith was the tradition that he had received, the faith in which the Church alone stands, that Christ died for our sins and that he rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures, appearing to his disciples and last of all to St. Paul himself, as a man born out of due time. But whether it is I or they, St. Paul continued, so we preach and so we have believed.

Confident in that faith we await that new heaven and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, when God’s Kingdom will finally come in its fullness, and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, when suffering and sin will be no more and God will wipe away every tear from every eye. 🔝

---

The Feast of the Most Precious Blood in the Tridentine Liturgy

“Thou hast redeemed us, O Lord, in Thy Blood.”

The Feast of the Most Precious Blood, celebrated in the Traditional Roman Rite on the 1st of July, stands as a solemn proclamation of the central mystery of our redemption: that the world was not saved by ideas, sentiments, or reforms—but by the pouring out of the Blood of the Incarnate Word. Instituted by Pope Pius IX in 1849, in thanksgiving for the Church’s preservation during the revolutionary upheavals of that year, the feast was later extended to the universal Church by Pope Pius X, who placed it at the very opening of July—a month consecrated to the Precious Blood.

As Dom Prosper Guéranger explains, the devotion to the Blood of Christ is not new. It is as old as Calvary, as constant as the Eucharist, and as scriptural as the Apocalypse, where the saints are shown to have “washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb”¹. By dedicating a distinct feast to the Precious Blood, the Church gives liturgical expression to that which has always stood at the heart of her worship and doctrine.

A Liturgical Theology of Redemption
The Introit opens with the voice of the heavenly court: “Thou hast redeemed us, O Lord, in Thy Blood, from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation” (cf. Apoc. 5:9–10). The Church places this doxology on our lips, identifying us with the triumphant saints who see in the wounds of Christ the cause of their joy.

The Collect speaks with unflinching clarity: “Almighty, eternal God, Who didst appoint Thine only-begotten Son to be the Redeemer of the world, and willed to be appeased by His Blood…”—a stark affirmation of the propitiatory nature of the Passion. The Precious Blood is not only a sign of love, but the very ransom that satisfied divine justice.

The Epistle (Heb 9:11–15) contrasts the blood of goats and calves with the Blood of Christ, offering a liturgical catechesis on the superiority of the New Covenant. “How much more,” asks St Paul, “shall the Blood of Christ cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The Tridentine liturgy, faithful to the early Church, understands the Blood not as metaphor, but as the vehicle of sanctification and the bond of the eternal covenant².

The Gospel (John 19:30–35) brings us to the foot of the Cross, to the moment when the side of Christ is pierced, and there comes forth “blood and water”—interpreted by the Fathers as the birth of the Church through the sacraments. Here, as Blessed Ildefonso Schuster observes, the liturgy is not merely recalling a past event, but mystically drawing us into the very hour of our redemption³.

The Chalice and the Cross
The Offertory verse—“I will take the chalice of salvation…”—directs our eyes to the altar, where that same chalice is raised, not in memory alone but in liturgical actualisation of Christ’s sacrifice. The Secret prays that this same Blood “may avail for the remission of our sins,” reiterating the traditional understanding of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice, offered for both the living and the dead⁴.

The Communion verse quotes St Paul: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16). And the Postcommunion prays that we may be preserved by the Blood we have received. Thus the whole liturgy is a seamless tapestry, drawing the soul from adoration to reception, from the Blood outpoured to the Blood received.

A Feast for Our Age of Forgetfulness
In an era that forgets sin, minimizes sacrifice, and reduces the Cross to sentiment, this feast stands as a liturgical rebuke to theological shallowness and devotional amnesia. The Precious Blood proclaims that salvation is costly, that mercy is not leniency, and that the Mass is not a meal, but a sacrifice.

As Dom Guéranger wrote, the Precious Blood is the “final expression of the love of the Word Incarnate; the last effort of a God exhausted not by death but by love”⁵. To venerate it rightly is to be brought low in repentance and raised high in adoration.

Let the faithful return with fervour to the Litany of the Precious Blood, to hours of adoration, to reverent participation in the ancient rite that does not veil but reveals the mystery of Calvary. Let this feast renew in us the sense that we are not our own—we were bought at a price (1 Cor 6:20). That price is the Blood of Christ.

“Blood of Christ, without which there is no forgiveness—save us.” 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. XIII: Time after Pentecost
² Heb 9:14–15
³ Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, The Sacramentary (Liber Sacramentorum), Vol. II
⁴ Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass
⁵ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, ibid.

---

---

---

Forgotten Rubrics: Taking Holy Water

A Sign Almost Lost
In many Catholic churches today, the once instinctive gesture of taking holy water upon entering or exiting the church has been forgotten, neglected, or rendered vague by lack of instruction. What was once a vivid sacramental act—rich in symbolism and spiritual benefit—is now often reduced to a casual or even absent gesture. Yet in the Tridentine tradition and perennial Catholic practice, the use of holy water is a significant and efficacious act of devotion, intimately connected with our baptism, spiritual renewal, and protection from evil.

The Rubrical Act
The traditional custom is clear and purposeful: upon entering or exiting a Catholic church, the faithful dip the fingertips of the right hand into the holy water font (or stoup) and make the Sign of the Cross, saying silently (or aloud): In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. This action should not be hasty, nor mindless. It is a ritual act—a renewal of one’s baptismal promises and a request for divine assistance.

Dom Prosper Guéranger writes:

“The Church…has blessed the water, and mingled salt with it, in order to drive away the influence of the wicked spirits who hover about us. She invites the faithful to sign themselves with it, and the effect is so powerful that it remits venial sin.”¹

More Than a Mere Reminder
To take holy water is not merely to recall one’s baptism. It is to participate in a real sacramental—an outward sign instituted by the Church which, through her prayer, disposes the soul to receive grace and actual graces. The water is blessed with solemn prayers and exorcisms. The traditional blessing—exorcizote creatura aquae…—is a clear invocation of divine power over the devil, disease, and danger. To make the Sign of the Cross with such water is to claim again the promises of Christ crucified and risen.

St. Teresa of Avila testified:

“From long experience I have learned that there is nothing like holy water to put devils to flight and prevent them from coming back again.”²

Practical Rubrics to Recover

1. Use the right hand to dip and sign. This is the traditional hand of blessing and dignity.
2. Say the Trinitarian formula—In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti—with attention.
3. Make the Sign of the Cross reverently, touching forehead, chest, left shoulder, then right.
4. Offer a short prayer, if possible, such as: “Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.”
5. Encourage children to learn and repeat the gesture properly, explaining its meaning.
6. Remember its use upon exit, not only entrance—leaving the sanctuary strengthened anew.

A Weapon at the Threshold
In a secular age increasingly forgetful of spiritual realities, the humble stoup of holy water at the door of the church becomes a font of grace and a bulwark against evil. It should not be neglected or used irreverently. Rather, the faithful should be re-taught its significance and encouraged to reclaim this simple, powerful rubric.

Let the recovery of these “forgotten rubrics” begin not with elaborate ceremonies, but with the daily gestures that reorient the soul to God and remind the Christian of his baptismal consecration. In this way, even the most habitual motions become prayers—and the very act of crossing a threshold becomes an act of sanctification. 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. I, Advent, on the Blessing of Holy Water.
² St. Teresa of Avila, Autobiography, Ch. 31.

---

5 Holy Doors: What Every Catholic Should Know Jubilee 2025

As the Church prepares to enter the 2025 Jubilee Year—the Jubilee of Hope—the faithful are being invited once again to pass through the Holy Doors of Rome, a rich and symbolic tradition signifying repentance, grace, and new life in Christ. This Jubilee, proclaimed by Pope Francis in his bull Spes Non Confundit (“Hope Does Not Disappoint”) on the feast of the Ascension, will begin on Christmas Eve, 2024, and conclude on the Epiphany, January 6, 2026.

The Five Holy Doors of Jubilee 2025
For this extraordinary Holy Year, five Holy Doors will be opened:

1. St. Peter’s Basilica – opened by Pope Francis on Christmas Eve; it will also be the last to close on the Epiphany 2026.
2. St. John Lateran – opened on Dec. 29, the feast of the Holy Family.
3. St. Mary Major – opened on Jan. 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
4. St. Paul Outside the Walls – opened on Jan. 5.
5. Rebibbia Prison Chapel – a Jubilee innovation: a Holy Door among the incarcerated, opened personally by the Pope.

The three major basilicas after St. Peter’s will close their Holy Doors on December 28, 2025, a week before the Jubilee ends.

What Is a Holy Door?
As Spes Non Confundit affirms, the Holy Door is a symbol of Christ Himself—“the door” (John 10:7) by which we enter into salvation. Pilgrims who pass through these doors with faith and contrition express their desire to leave behind sin and enter more deeply into communion with the Church.

St. John Paul II, in his own Jubilee bull Incarnationis Mysterium (1998), powerfully taught that the Holy Door “evokes the passage from sin to grace,” reminding the faithful that to pass through it is to “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” and commit to the “new life” He offers.

Scriptural Roots and Patristic Imagery
The symbolism of the Holy Door is deeply scriptural:

• “Knock, and the door shall be opened” (Luke 11:9)
• “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20)
• “I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved” (John 10:9)

These verses are not mere metaphors but truths fulfilled in Christ, echoed by the Fathers of the Church. St. Augustine sees Christ as “the door by which the shepherds and sheep enter” (In Io. Ev. Tract. 47), while St. Gregory the Great writes, “He is the door because He opens the way to eternal life.”

A Tradition Rooted in History
The tradition of the Jubilee Year began with Pope Boniface VIII in 1300, though the practice of opening a Holy Door came later, first recorded in 1423 at St. John Lateran. In 1499, Pope Alexander VI extended the practice to the other three major basilicas of Rome. By the 16th century, Jubilee Years were fixed every 25 years—with extraordinary Jubilees proclaimed at the Pope’s discretion, such as 1933 (the 1900th anniversary of Redemption) and 2000.

Ritual and Symbolism
From 1525 to 1950, the Holy Door of St. Peter’s was walled up and ceremonially broken open with a silver hammer by the Pope. Since the Jubilee of 1975 and especially in 2000, greater emphasis has been placed on the door itself—now cast in bronze with 16 biblical bas-reliefs depicting the history of sin and redemption, from Adam and the Angel to the Good Thief, Thomas’ doubt, and the opening of the Holy Door itself.

As Cardinal Virgilio Noè once wrote: “The sixteen panels of the door are like the verses of a hymn, which sing of God’s infinite mercy.”

Mercy for the Incarcerated
In a striking gesture, Pope Francis has chosen to open one of the five Holy Doors at Rebibbia Prison, inviting prisoners to experience the mercy and hope of the Jubilee. In Spes Non Confundit, he urges that all prisoners “look to the future with hope and a renewed sense of confidence.” This aligns with his vision of a Church that reaches to the peripheries, a theme he consistently returns to in his pontificate.

Pastoral Significance
The Holy Doors are not talismans, but sacramental signs calling the faithful to conversion, penance, and spiritual renewal. They offer an opportunity for indulgences, as per the ordinary conditions: sacramental confession, reception of the Eucharist, and prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father.

As the master of papal liturgical celebrations has noted, the prayer used before opening the Holy Door is drawn from Luke 4:18, where Christ proclaims “a year of favor from the Lord.” The Church, continuing His mission, invites all to encounter the “Door of Hope” (Hosea 2:15) and to rediscover the promise of mercy and transformation.

Conclusion: The Door Is Open—But Must Be Crossed
Ultimately, the Holy Door confronts each Catholic with a decision. As John Paul II said, “To pass through that door means to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” It is an act of hope, an embrace of divine mercy, and a step toward renewal. As the 2025 Jubilee of Hope approaches, Catholics are called not merely to admire the door—but to walk through it. 🔝

1. Spes Non Confundit, Bull of Indiction of the Jubilee Year 2025, Pope Francis, May 9, 2024.
2. Incarnationis Mysterium, Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, Pope John Paul II, Nov 29, 1998.
3. St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 47.
4. St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, Homily 19.
5. Cardinal Virgilio Noè, The Holy Door in St. Peter’s, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1471–1479, on indulgences and Jubilee participation.

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

The Cracked Foundation of Traditionis Custodes
Leaked Vatican Report Contradicts the Justification for Suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass

Thanks to the investigative work of journalist Diane Montagna, the long-suppressed overall assessment of the 2020 episcopal consultation on Summorum Pontificum, commissioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has now come to light.¹ Contrary to Pope Francis’s stated rationale, the majority of bishops did not demand its repeal; they cautioned that revoking Summorum would cause more harm than good and undermine the liturgical peace that had been achieved.²

A Narrative at Odds with the Evidence
Pope Francis claimed in Traditionis Custodes that he acted in response to bishops’ reports of division and pastoral abuse surrounding the Traditional Latin Mass.³ But the leaked CDF assessment—compiled by the Fourth Section of the Congregation—presents a strikingly different picture. Where bishops implemented Summorum Pontificum with pastoral prudence, the result was reconciliation and ecclesial peace.⁴ Resistance to the traditional liturgy came primarily from a minority of bishops who either misunderstood or rejected Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”⁵

This discrepancy did not go unnoticed by canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, who remarked that the Vatican’s narrative reversal resembled earlier instances where Pope Francis restructured consultative processes to produce desired outcomes—as seen during the Synods on the Family.⁶ He and Robert Royal concurred: the pope appeared to have decided in advance on restricting the older liturgy and sought retroactive justification.

The Fruits of Summorum Pontificum
The CDF assessment—affirmed by both Montagna’s investigation and commentary from the Arroyo panel—identifies concrete fruits:
• Growth in vocations among Ecclesia Dei communities⁷
• A large share of young adults, converts, and reverts drawn to the TLM⁸
• Stability and unity in dioceses where clergy and bishops worked cooperatively⁹

As Fr. Murray noted, these communities often consisted of “young people with children”—a demographic that bishops struggling with declining attendance and vocations would otherwise welcome.¹⁰

The report also found that many bishops regarded the older liturgy as a “treasure” of the Church and a means of recovering coherence with the Church’s past.¹¹ Pope Benedict XVI’s goal of “mutual enrichment” between the two forms was beginning to bear fruit, especially in liturgical music and homiletic depth.

Warnings That Were Ignored
According to the CDF, many bishops foresaw that suppressing Summorum Pontificum would provoke renewed liturgical tensions, increase distrust toward Rome, and drive faithful toward the SSPX and other irregular groups.¹² Robert Royal noted the irony: these were stable, orthodox communities—often more engaged and obedient to their bishops than many others.¹³

Fr. Murray added that diocesan integration of the TLM had succeeded precisely because it had drawn people away from breakaway chapels and re-integrated them into diocesan life.¹⁴ This was the very pastoral fruit that Benedict XVI had hoped for.

Suppressing What Was Working
Despite these findings, Pope Francis personally intervened. According to Montagna, he demanded an early copy of the report from Cardinal Ladaria, then ignored its substance.¹⁵ The accompanying letter to Traditionis Custodes claimed widespread episcopal alarm over “divisions,” “exploitation,” and “disobedience.” But as Robert Royal pointed out, there was no widespread episcopal outcry at the time.¹⁶ This was a top-down decision, not a synodal one.

The panel suggested that the real reason for the suppression may have been discomfort with the natural comparison between the traditional and modern rites. Benedict’s vision allowed the two to exist side by side; Traditionis Custodes sought to eliminate the older as a point of reference.¹⁷

Let the People Choose
The report closes with the voice of a Filipino bishop: “Let the people be free to choose.”¹⁸ This simple pastoral principle stands in stark contrast to the forced exclusion of the Latin Mass from parish life under Traditionis Custodes. Detroit, for example, saw the TLM eliminated from 13 of 17 parishes as of 1 July 2025.¹⁹ The ban extended even to listing TLMs in bulletins—what Fr. Murray described as an unprecedented eviction of faithful Catholics worshipping according to a rite never abrogated.²⁰

The Deeper Issue: Vatican II and the Church’s Future
Underlying this debate is a profound question of identity. Fr. Murray observed that Traditionis Custodes reflects a vision of postconciliar rupture: one that sees pre–Vatican II liturgy as inherently dangerous or obsolete.²¹ Benedict XVI’s vision, by contrast, affirms that “what was sacred then remains sacred now.”²²

This question is not merely aesthetic. As Robert Royal noted, Vatican II proposed both aggiornamento and ressourcement—renewal and return to the sources.²³ Suppressing the traditional liturgy unbalances that vision, disconnecting the faithful from their roots.

What Must Be Done
Pope Leo XIV now faces a decision. Will he continue to enforce a policy built on selective reporting and ideological motives? Or will he, as the Arroyo panel urged, act with justice and restore stability by reversing or softening Traditionis Custodes?²⁴

Unity is not uniformity. The faithful do not ask for a new Church—they ask to remain connected to the Church they received from their fathers. A liturgy that formed saints, sustained centuries, and continues to inspire vocations must not be cast aside under the pretext of reform.

The Church belongs to all her children, and the Traditional Latin Mass is not a relic—it is a treasure. Let it be offered, reverently and generously, for the good of souls and the renewal of the Church. 🔝

¹ Diane Montagna, “EXCLUSIVE: Official Vatican Report Exposes Major Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes,” Substack, 1 July 2025.
² Ibid., citing the CDF’s Giudizio Complessivo.
³ Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes, Letter to Bishops, 16 July 2021.
⁴ Montagna, citing diocesan experiences of stability under Summorum Pontificum.
⁵ Ibid., citing regions such as Italy and Spain where resistance persisted.
⁶ Fr. Gerald Murray, The Arroyo Grande Show, 2 July 2025, ~2:15–3:00.
⁷ CDF report cited in Montagna; confirmed in Arroyo Show, ~5:28–6:00.
⁸ Ibid., also cited by Arroyo, ~18:11–19:07.
⁹ Ibid., “dove il clero ha collaborato con il vescovo…”
¹⁰ Fr. Gerald Murray, Arroyo Show, ~6:00–6:45.
¹¹ CDF report quoted: “a treasure of the Church to be safeguarded…”
¹² Montagna, citing bishops’ concerns over schism and pastoral fallout.
¹³ Robert Royal, Arroyo Show, ~10:50–11:20.
¹⁴ Fr. Gerald Murray, Ibid.
¹⁵ Montagna, citing private audience with Cardinal Ladaria.
¹⁶ Robert Royal, Ibid., ~3:08–3:45.
¹⁷ Ibid., ~27:00–28:00.
¹⁸ CDF report, quoted in Montagna.
¹⁹ Arroyo, Arroyo Show, ~29:34–30:00.
²⁰ Fr. Gerald Murray, Ibid., ~30:00–31:00.
²¹ Ibid., ~25:00–26:30.
²² Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, 2007.
²³ Robert Royal, Arroyo Show, ~23:00–23:50.
²⁴ Ibid., ~33:00–34:00.

---

Pope Leo XIV’s Early Appointments: Signals of a Pontificate Rooted in Diplomacy, Stability, and Reform

Less than three months into his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has begun shaping the contours of his governance through a series of key appointments. While measured in number, the choices made so far suggest a pontificate oriented toward diplomatic engagement, practical reform, and a cautious continuity with the policies of his predecessors—particularly in matters of synodality and global outreach.

Interreligious Dialogue as Diplomatic Priority
The most notable signal came on 3 July, with the appointment of new members to the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. Among those named were Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa (Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem), Cardinal Dominique Mathieu (Apostolic Vicar of Southern Arabia), Cardinal Tarcisio Kikuchi (Archbishop of Tokyo), and Archbishop Charles Jason Gordon of Port of Spain. The geographic spread—from the Holy Land to East Asia, and from the Islamic Gulf to the Caribbean—underscores the new pope’s intent to anchor his pontificate in global bridge-building.

Observers note that this group includes bishops with on-the-ground experience in Catholic–Muslim, Catholic–Jewish, and Catholic–Buddhist dialogue. The choice of Pizzaballa in particular—a seasoned mediator in the volatile Middle East—signals a renewed Vatican emphasis on peace diplomacy through religious engagement, likely anticipating a new papal voyage to the region, perhaps even Turkey, by year’s end¹.

A Quiet Continuity in the Curia
While many expected immediate structural changes in the Roman Curia, Pope Leo has so far opted for continuity. His appointment of Monsignor Renzo Pegoraro as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, replacing Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, retained the institution’s internal leadership. Pegoraro, a medical doctor and moral theologian, was Paglia’s longtime deputy and represents a technocratic rather than ideological choice.

This has been interpreted by some as a sign that Leo XIV does not intend to radically overhaul Pope Francis’ institutional reforms but will instead seek to recalibrate them with more consistent theological clarity. It remains to be seen whether this technocratic strategy will satisfy critics who have long accused the Academy for Life of doctrinal ambiguity.

Local Bishops and the Global Church
In episcopal appointments, Pope Leo’s first moves have likewise been discreet but telling. In May, he named auxiliary bishops in Callao, Peru, and in June, confirmed the appointment of Bishop Peter Wu Yishun in Fuzhou under the terms of the still-controversial Vatican–China provisional agreement².

The Fuzhou appointment drew particular attention. Despite the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement with Beijing, Leo’s willingness to proceed with episcopal confirmations indicates that he sees pastoral necessity in continuing the accord—if not without reservations. The appointment of bishops in regions where the Church faces real persecution reflects a preference for pastoral realism over ideological purity.

The Pallium and the Papal Finances
At the Mass for the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on 29 June, Leo conferred the pallium on 54 new metropolitan archbishops, among them Archbishop Udumala Bala of Visakhapatnam, India³. The ceremonial investiture of these pallia—restored in recent years to highlight the role of the pope as a unifier of the episcopate—was accompanied by a sobering institutional announcement: the Vatican has launched a global fundraising campaign to address its €57–68 million deficit.

QR codes, multilingual appeals, and a dedicated digital platform mark a new phase of papal pragmatism. Rather than concealing its financial distress, the Vatican under Leo XIV is presenting it plainly and appealing for accountability from the faithful. The approach—more common in American diocesan fundraising than Roman bureaucracy—may reflect the pope’s cultural roots and desire for financial transparency.

Signs of a Governing Style
From these appointments and initiatives, a profile of Pope Leo XIV’s leadership style is beginning to emerge:

• Diplomatic: Engagement with Islam, Judaism, and Asia has taken early precedence, with appointments favouring seasoned international prelates.
• Pragmatic: Financial reform and logistical planning have featured prominently, including the appointment of José Nahúm Salas Castañeda to oversee papal travel.
• Continuist, with Distinction: Rather than reversing Francis-era trajectories, Leo seems inclined to redirect them with firmer doctrinal grounding and administrative coherence.

Whether this governing style will yield renewal or frustration depends largely on how Leo navigates the next phase: addressing tensions within the episcopate, clarifying the Church’s moral voice, and reforming Vatican governance at a deeper structural level.

Conclusion
The early appointments of Pope Leo XIV suggest a pontificate more pastoral than polemical, more reforming than revolutionary. It is a papacy thus far marked by gravitas rather than theatre—seeking to restore trust not through grand gestures, but by reweaving the delicate fabric of ecclesial communion, diplomatic responsibility, and missionary fidelity.

As one Vatican source remarked anonymously this week, “He is moving quietly. But each move matters.” 🔝

1. Vatican Press Office Bulletin, Appointments to the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, 3 July 2025.
2. Catholic News Agency, “Pope Leo XIV Approves Bishop Appointment in China under Provisional Accord,” 24 June 2025.
3. Times of India, “Archbishop Udumala Bala Receives Pallium from Pope Leo XIV,” 30 June 2025.
4. Associated Press, “Pope Launches Global Campaign to Reduce Vatican Budget Deficit,” 29 June 2025.
5. Exaudi.org, “Leo XIV Begins to Shape His Pontificate with First Appointments,” 21 June 2025.

---

The “Mass for the Care of Creation”: Innovation or Ideological Liturgy?

On 9 July 2025, Pope Leo XIV is scheduled to celebrate a new liturgical formulary entitled the “Mass for the Care of Creation.” Approved by the Dicastery for Divine Worship and published in the Appendix to the Roman Missal for Special Intentions, this Mass was developed in response to Laudato Si’ and subsequent papal calls for ecological conversion. Billed as an expression of concern for “our common home,” the new liturgy has been described by supporters as a prophetic sign of the Church’s environmental witness.

Yet the initiative has not been met with universal acclaim. Among liturgical traditionalists, theologians, and clergy who adhere to the perennial Roman Rite, the development has prompted critical scrutiny—not merely for its novelty, but for what it reveals about the ongoing reform of the liturgy, the ideological instrumentalisation of the sacraments, and the risk of displacing theocentric worship with anthropocentric concerns.

A New Missa Pro Terra?
The Mass for the Care of Creation includes a newly composed Preface, modified Collect, and options for readings drawn from Genesis 1, Psalm 104, and Pauline exhortations to stewardship. The collect prays: “O God, who have entrusted the earth to our care as a sign of your covenant love, grant that we, mindful of our shared home, may cherish with reverence the gifts of creation.” It omits direct mention of sin, redemption, or the Cross.

Supporters claim that the Mass aligns with the Season of Creation and complements the votive Masses already found in the Missal—such as for Rain, for Fine Weather, or for the Propagation of the Faith. Cardinal Pedro López, Prefect of the Dicastery, called the Mass “a liturgical expression of integral ecology… rooting the Church’s ecological mission in Eucharistic sacrifice.”

A Traditionalist Appraisal
Traditionalist commentators, however, raise several theological and liturgical objections.

1. A Shift from Sacrifice to Sentiment
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, writing recently in New Liturgical Movement, warned that the new formulary reflects the postconciliar trend toward horizontalism: “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a classroom nor a lobbying platform. The Cross of Christ is not a metaphor for sustainable energy policy.”

Critics argue that the Mass for the Care of Creation represents a continuing redefinition of liturgy as expression of values rather than act of divine worship. By focusing on temporal goals—however laudable—they say the Mass risks becoming an instrument of moral activism, not theocentric sacrifice. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mediator Dei, the Mass is above all the renewal of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, not a human-centred gathering for the affirmation of ideals.

2. Confusion of Ends and Means
The Traditional Roman Rite already contains prayers for creation—not as ends in themselves, but as means to sanctification. Prayers for rain, harvest, or deliverance from storms appear in the Rogation Days and Ember Days. Yet they are framed within a penitential and sacrificial context, often linked to the sins of men and the justice of God.

The Care of Creation Mass, by contrast, reframes man as caretaker of the world rather than as a penitent creature in need of grace. There is no petition for the forgiveness of humanity’s offenses against the Creator, nor any reference to the eschatological renewal of the cosmos in Christ—a theme prominent in Scripture and patristic writings.

3. The Ideological Liturgy Problem
Some theologians express concern that the new Mass is a further step toward politicised liturgy. In the past decade, liturgical innovations have been tied to migration, climate, and social justice narratives, often aligned with secular political agendas. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has frequently warned that “a liturgy tailored to fashionable causes loses its universality and risks becoming a tool of ideological messaging.”

Traditionalists fear that the Mass for the Care of Creation participates in what Joseph Ratzinger once called “the manipulation of the liturgy.” In The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ratzinger decried the temptation to make liturgy a mirror of current cultural anxieties rather than an entry into the eternal worship of heaven.

4. Ecclesiological Discontinuity
Lastly, the development of new liturgical formularies without reference to tradition raises questions of ecclesiological rupture. Traditional Catholics point out that the usus antiquior—the Traditional Latin Mass—underwent organic development for over a millennium. The postconciliar habit of innovation by committee, often with thin theological grounding and rapid canonical insertion, represents a break from this continuity.

Pope Benedict XVI had sought to encourage mutual enrichment between the rites; yet critics say the unilateral imposition of novel formularies—especially when tied to a particular encyclical or papal initiative—replaces the slow discernment of tradition with the top-down fiat of bureaucratic liturgists.

Conclusion
Few traditional Catholics dispute the importance of responsible stewardship of the earth. Creation is a gift, not an idol. But reverence for nature must be ordered to the worship of the Creator, not reoriented into a quasi-religious environmentalism. The Mass for the Care of Creation, in its current form, appears to invert that hierarchy.

The Church’s liturgy is not a tool for activism, however well-meaning. It is the mystical participation in the eternal Sacrifice of Calvary. And if that is obscured—even in the name of justice—the faithful will not draw closer to God, nor the world be healed. 🔝

1. Missale Romanum. Appendix: Missa pro Cura Creationis, Vatican Press, 2025.
2. Mediator Dei, Pius XII, §§48–52.
3. Peter Kwasniewski, “The Ideological Instrumentalization of the Liturgy,” New Liturgical Movement, July 2025.
4. Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, 2000, ch. 3.
5. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Christus Vincit, Angelico Press, 2019.
6. Season of Creation materials, Laudato Si’ Movement, 2023–2025.

---

The Epistemological Crisis of Hyperpapalism
How Nominalism, Voluntarism, and Positivism Destroyed the Catholic Mind

In the wake of the recent revelations surrounding Traditionis Custodes, the mask has slipped. For nearly four years, defenders of the motu proprio insisted that Pope Francis was simply responding to the bishops’ survey—a rational process informed by pastoral concerns. Yet with the leak of the Vatican’s own internal assessment (which confirmed that most bishops saw no problem with the Traditional Latin Mass), the narrative abruptly changed¹.

Suddenly, we were told that the pope had acted despite the bishops’ responses. That his own judgment superseded theirs. That he saw “problems” elsewhere. That “he’s the pope,” and as such, he doesn’t need to justify himself to anyone. That if he destroys the spiritual lives of Catholics who found joy and peace through the traditional rites, “them’s the breaks,” and we should all just get over it.

This is more than just gaslighting. It’s more than ecclesiastical spin. It reveals an underlying epistemological collapse in much of contemporary Catholic thought—a collapse best described as a combination of nominalism, voluntarism, and positivism.

From Tradition to Will: The Triumph of Nominalism
The pre-modern Catholic tradition—rooted in Scripture, the Fathers, and scholastic realism—held that truth is knowable, tradition is authoritative, and the pope is a guardian, not a creator, of doctrine². But nominalism—first injected into theology by William of Ockham and later reinforced by modern rationalist thought—denies the existence of real universals or essences³. There is no such thing as a “nature” of the Church or a “substance” of tradition; there are only names, labels, and arbitrary associations. Once this view infects ecclesiology, it becomes easy to see liturgical tradition not as the organically developed expression of the Church’s faith, but as a mere historical accident, changeable at will.

Voluntarism and the Papal Will as Law
Voluntarism builds on nominalism by asserting that will precedes reason—and when applied to God, it sees divine action as arbitrary rather than ordered by wisdom⁴. In the papal context, this becomes the belief that the pope’s decisions are valid and good simply because he wills them. There is no need to evaluate his actions against prior tradition, common good, or theological consistency. As many “popesplainers” now claim: if the pope suppressed the TLM, then it is automatically just, even if it defies the expressed consensus of bishops or centuries of prior magisterium⁵.

In this scheme, to question a papal act is not just disobedient—it is epistemologically impossible. One cannot appeal to reason, evidence, or tradition. The will of the pope is the first principle.

Positivism: Ecclesial Acts as Self-Justifying
Lastly, we must name the juridical positivism now rampant in Church governance. Canon law, in the classical sense, presupposes justice, reason, and custom⁶. But modern ecclesial positivism treats every papal act as self-legitimating. The issuance of a motu proprio becomes its own justification. There is no longer a recognition of the ius divinum, the divine and natural law that binds even popes. Instead, authority becomes procedural and performative⁷.

The Search for a New Cartesian Rock
Having lost confidence in objective tradition, rational consistency, and theological realism, many Catholics instinctively reach for a new epistemic foundation. Like Descartes seeking one indubitable truth in the ruins of philosophical certainty, they now grasp at the person of the pope—not as a successor of Peter guided by tradition, but as a free-floating source of certainty. Whatever he says, that is the truth. Whatever he does, that is the good. “He’s the pope,” they say, as if that ends the conversation.

But this is not the Catholic faith. It is not the doctrine of Vatican I, which defined papal infallibility within strict conditions⁸, not as a blank cheque. It is not the theology of St. Thomas⁹, St. Robert Bellarmine¹⁰, or Cajetan¹¹, all of whom affirmed the possibility of papal error, and the duty to resist novelties that threaten the faith. And it is not the mind of the Church, which through centuries of saints and councils has testified to the primacy of truth over persons, and of tradition over innovation.

The Tragedy of Deformation
The tragedy here is not merely theoretical. It is pastoral and spiritual. It is the tragedy of souls denied the riches of their heritage. Of faithful Catholics—young families, converts, seminarians—told that their love for the TLM is a threat, that their piety is “divisive,” that their devotion must be punished. And it is the tragedy of bishops and priests who know better, but dare not speak, lest they be branded disloyal.

This crisis will not be resolved by rhetorical acrobatics or appeals to raw power. It will only be resolved by a return to realism, tradition, and truth—to a Catholic epistemology grounded not in arbitrary will, but in the Logos.

For only the Truth can make us free. 🔝

1. Diane Montagna, “Leaked Vatican Document Contradicts ‘Traditionis Custodes’ Justification,” The Remnant, June 2025.
2. Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 2: “Faith and Reason.” Cf. De Ecclesia Christi (Bellarmine), Book III.
3. Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, esp. chs. 4–6.
4. Joseph Owens, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics, on divine simplicity and will.
5. See the papalist shift post-Traditionis Custodes in the statements of figures like Massimo Faggioli and Austen Ivereigh.
6. Gratian, Decretum, Dist. 1; St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q.95, a.2: “On Human Law.”
7. Charles De Koninck, The Primacy of the Common Good Against the Personalists, trans. McInerny.
8. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4: “On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
9. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q.104, a.5: “Whether Subjects Are Bound to Obey Their Superiors in All Things?”
10. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, ch. 29: “A Pope Who Is a Manifest Heretic Ceases to Be Pope.”
11. Cardinal Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, ch. 27: “In Case of Error, a Pope Must Be Resisted.”

---

Canterbury Turns Back to Becket: Saints, Shrines, and the Return of Catholic Memory

On July 7, 2025, in a moment heavy with both irony and significance, the Roman Catholic Church will offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Canterbury Cathedral, the symbolic heart of Anglicanism. The celebrant will be none other than Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendía, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United Kingdom. The occasion? The feast of the Translation of St Thomas Becket, commemorating the solemn enshrinement of the martyr’s relics in the high altar of Canterbury Cathedral in 1220.

The Mass will not be a mere ecumenical gesture. Those present may obtain a plenary indulgence, by the authority of the Apostolic Penitentiary under the Jubilee Year declared by the late Pope Francis¹. It is a scene that would have startled Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, and Henry VIII himself — a papal legate, honoring a papally canonized saint, offering the very rite that the Reformation claimed to replace, in the very place it overthrew.

St Thomas Becket, martyred in 1170 by knights loyal to King Henry II, quickly became a symbol of resistance to royal interference in the Church. His cult, promoted across Christendom, brought pilgrims in droves to Canterbury until it was violently suppressed under Henry VIII in 1538². Becket’s shrine was dismantled, his relics scattered, and even his name stricken from public memory by royal decree. Now, nearly five centuries later, a relic — a bone rescued and preserved by English recusants — will return to the cathedral, carried solemnly from the local Catholic parish of St Thomas of Canterbury³.

This event is not an isolated anomaly. It reflects a wider and curious phenomenon: the renewed presence of relics and saintly shrines in the cathedrals of the Church of England — many of them restored with Catholic assistance. In Hereford Cathedral, the shrine of St Thomas of Cantilupe was re-established in 2008 with relics loaned by the Jesuits⁴. At Lichfield Cathedral, the bones of St Chad, first bishop of Lichfield, were received from the Catholic Cathedral of St Chad in Birmingham in 2022⁵. And at St Albans, the shrine of Britain’s proto-martyr now holds a bone returned from Germany, gifted before the Reformation and repatriated to English soil⁶.

Anglican leaders, while reticent to speak in the language of “relics” and “veneration,” acknowledge the emotional and spiritual power of these returns. “The language of relics does not come naturally to many Anglicans,” Bishop Michael Ipgrave of Lichfield said, “but we do use the language and practice of memory and remembering”⁷. That memory, however, is not passive nostalgia. It has provoked renewed pilgrimage, intercession, and what some might call a rediscovery of Catholic forms beneath Anglican forms. Lichfield Cathedral, for example, saw visitor numbers increase from 100,000 in 2013 to over 142,000 in 2024 following the restoration of the shrine⁸.

This spiritual thaw has not gone unnoticed by the Catholic hierarchy. Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham remarked that “the veneration of relics and their enclosure in altars comes from the earliest days of the Church… The tradition encourages us to reflect on their lives as signposts of faith”⁹. He confirmed that Catholics who make pilgrimage to Lichfield to venerate Chad’s relics may, under the Jubilee provisions, also obtain an indulgence¹⁰.

Yet there is a theological tension in this phenomenon. The very practices that provoked the Protestant Reformation — devotion to saints, pilgrimages, indulgences — are reappearing, recontextualised by Anglicans as cultural heritage, liturgical memory, or ecumenical hospitality. But can one host the relic of a Catholic saint without eventually confronting the Church that canonized him? Can memory be so neatly separated from veneration when candles are lit, prayers are offered, and bones are enshrined?

These are not idle questions. The revival of shrines in Anglican cathedrals suggests not merely a renewed interest in history but a recognition — perhaps unconscious — of a spiritual lack. Where doctrine has dissolved into ambiguity, symbol and sacrament offer a kind of stability. Where ecclesial structures falter, the bones of the saints still speak. As Chaucer’s pilgrims once journeyed to Canterbury in search of healing, grace, and penance, so too modern Britain seems — perhaps fumblingly — to be searching again.

The irony is sharp. Indulgences, mocked in the Canterbury Tales and condemned by reformers as simony, are once again being preached, though now with catechesis, not commerce¹¹. Relics, once derided as superstitious trinkets, are now handled with reverence and encased in commissioned reliquaries. The Mass, once exiled, now returns — still in Latin, and offered upon the altar where Becket’s shrine once stood.

This is not yet reunion. But it is remembrance. And in the strange liturgy of history, remembrance — rightly ordered — is often the first gesture of restoration. 🔝

¹ Pope Francis declared 2025 a Jubilee Year of Hope. Indulgences for the faithful are granted under the norms of Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1967), §§6–9.
² The shrine of St Thomas Becket was destroyed in 1538 under Henry VIII, who also ordered all references to Becket erased from public records and calendars.
³ The relic of St Thomas Becket now held by St Thomas’s Catholic parish in Canterbury is a bone fragment preserved by recusant Catholics after the Reformation.
⁴ The shrine of St Thomas of Cantilupe in Hereford was restored with relics loaned by the Jesuits in 2008, reviving devotion suppressed since 1538.
⁵ The Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham gifted a relic of St Chad to Lichfield Cathedral in 2022, nearly 500 years after the original shrine’s destruction.
⁶ The relic of St Alban was returned to the eponymous cathedral by a German Catholic church. It is believed to have been gifted to a German cleric before the Reformation.
⁷ Quoted in the July 2025 Religion News Service report by Catherine Pepinster, “Catholic Mass in Anglicanism’s home cathedral taps UK vogue for saints’ relics.”
⁸ Data from Wolverhampton University’s study on Lichfield pilgrimage and cathedral visitor figures (2024).
⁹ Archbishop Bernard Longley, quoted in diocesan press release at the time of the 2022 translation of St Chad’s relic to Lichfield.
¹⁰ As confirmed by Archbishop Longley, pilgrims fulfilling the usual Jubilee conditions may gain a plenary indulgence by visiting the shrine.
¹¹ Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (late 14th century) famously mocked the pardoner and the selling of indulgences, echoing medieval critiques of ecclesiastical corruption later weaponized by reformers.

---

Title: When Conscience Is Convenient: Communion, Catholic Witness, and the Case of Chris Coghlan MP

A priest’s fidelity exposes the uncomfortable truth about faith, politics, and pastoral integrity

When Fr Ian Vane, parish priest of St Joseph’s Catholic Church in Dorking, denied Holy Communion to Liberal Democrat MP Chris Coghlan, he set off a national debate that has since escalated into formal complaint and ecclesiastical scrutiny. The controversy centres not merely on an act of sacramental discipline, but on the deeper tension between public Catholic identity and private political compromise.

The Background
In June 2025, Parliament held a free vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted suicide for those diagnosed with terminal illnesses. As is customary with matters of grave moral weight, the party whips were suspended, giving MPs liberty to vote according to conscience. In theory, this should have enabled Catholic MPs to act in fidelity to the Church’s unambiguous condemnation of euthanasia. Yet Chris Coghlan, the newly elected MP for Dorking & Horley—and a professed Catholic—voted in favour, justifying his decision by citing the apparent wishes of a majority of his constituents.

This rationale reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of a free vote, which is not designed to serve populist deference, but to enable MPs to act according to their own moral convictions, particularly where they have strong religious or ethical formation. In opting to reflect public opinion rather than personal belief or Church teaching, Mr Coghlan hollowed out the very principle that gives a free vote its moral legitimacy.

The Priest Responds
Fr Ian Vane, recognising the public scandal caused by a Catholic MP supporting such legislation, acted in accordance with Canon 915 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law. The canon obliges ministers to deny Holy Communion to those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” Given the moral gravity of the issue, the public nature of the act, and the absence of any sign of repentance, Fr Vane judged that sacramental discipline was not only justified but pastorally necessary.

In a sermon following the vote, Fr Vane named Mr Coghlan directly and announced that he would not be admitted to Communion unless he publicly retracted his support for the bill. The action, while bold, was consistent with Catholic pastoral tradition and with the expectations of priests when confronted with public figures whose actions contradict core tenets of the faith.

The Escalation
Rather than seeking reconciliation or clarification with his pastor, Mr Coghlan responded by lodging a formal complaint with Bishop Richard Moth, accusing Fr Vane of acting “outrageously” and claiming his actions undermined “the legitimacy of religious institutions in public life.” The irony of the charge is difficult to miss: it is not the priest, but the MP—by supporting a bill which Cardinal Vincent Nichols warned would jeopardise the future of Catholic hospices, nursing homes, and medical institutions—who threatens the legitimacy and viability of religious witness in the public square¹.

The Diocese of Arundel and Brighton has acknowledged receipt of the complaint and confirmed that contact was made with Mr Coghlan to offer dialogue. However, Church authorities have shown no sign of retreating from Fr Vane’s principled stand. Indeed, Cardinal Nichols’ continued public statements reinforce the broader pastoral and institutional concern over the bill’s implications.

The Broader Implications
At the heart of this incident lies a central question: what does it mean to be a Catholic in public life? The Church does not expect political representatives to impose Catholicism on a pluralist society, but it does expect them, particularly when granted the freedom of conscience, to act in accord with divine and natural law. Euthanasia is not a grey area. It is, as St John Paul II declared in Evangelium Vitae, “a grave violation of the law of God.”

By invoking constituent sentiment in a free vote, Mr Coghlan effectively outsourced his conscience, undermining both the moral purpose of parliamentary liberty and the witness of faith he claims to hold. Meanwhile, Fr Vane, by applying the Church’s discipline with sobriety and courage, has defended not only the integrity of the Eucharist, but the credibility of Catholic witness.

Conclusion
This is not merely a pastoral disagreement or a media flashpoint—it is a parable for our age. As the state grows ever bolder in its redefinition of life, death, and morality, the Church will be increasingly forced to choose between consolation and confrontation, between quiet acquiescence and visible fidelity. In denying Communion, Fr Vane did not politicise the altar. He preserved it.

It remains to be seen whether his bishop will support him openly, whether Mr Coghlan will reconsider his position, or whether this will become yet another case in which Catholic identity is sacrificed on the altar of political convenience. But for now, one thing is clear: the cost of telling the truth, even quietly from the pulpit, is rising—and those willing to pay it are few. 🔝

¹ Cardinal Vincent Nichols, statement ahead of the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 20 June 2025: “Should this Bill pass, Catholic hospices, care homes, and medical institutions would be placed in an impossible situation—expected either to cooperate in euthanasia or face regulatory and legal pressures which could make continued operation untenable.”
² Code of Canon Law, Can. 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
³ Evangelium Vitae, St John Paul II, 1995, §65.
⁴ House of Commons Library Briefing Paper CBP-7465: “Free Votes in the House of Commons,” 2021.
⁵ Catholic News Agency, “British MP Chris Coghlan criticizes Catholic priest Father Ian Vane for refusing Holy Communion over Bill,” 27 June 2025.
⁶ Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, Press Office Statement, 1 July 2025.

---

---

In Other News…

---

Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” and the Betrayal of the Common Good
How OBBBA reshapes the moral fabric of American governance—and what Catholic social teaching demands in response

In a razor-thin 218–214 vote just before Independence Day, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Trump’s cornerstone legislative package: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Lauded by its supporters as a victory for national renewal and economic liberty, and signed within hours at a festive ceremony, the bill represents the most sweeping transformation of federal priorities since the 1980s.

But behind its patriotic fanfare and populist branding lies a sobering reality: millions of the poor, sick, elderly, and working-class families will suffer.

Structural Features of the Bill
The bill is structured around five primary pillars:

1. Tax Code Overhaul:
   Trump-era individual and corporate tax cuts are extended indefinitely. New deductions for overtime pay, elder care, and service workers’ tips are introduced—popular with certain voter blocs, but skewed in overall benefit. The top 1% of earners are projected to gain over $120,000 per year from the changes, while the bottom 60% will receive, on average, less than $800 annually¹.
2. Welfare Retrenchment:
   Cuts exceeding $1.2 trillion over ten years are applied to:
   • Medicaid: Eligibility caps and new work requirements could remove up to 12 million low-income adults from coverage, especially in Southern states where expansion was already limited².
   • SNAP (food stamps): Reforms tighten income thresholds, reimpose time limits for adults without dependents, and reduce benefit calculations, affecting 6.8 million people³.
   • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Funding is frozen, effectively reducing aid as inflation and need increase.
3. Military and Border Expansion:
   • $120 billion increase to the Department of Defense, primarily for weapons systems and cyber-warfare infrastructure.
   • $50 billion for border enforcement, including new physical barriers, detention centres, and aerial surveillance—doubling ICE funding from pre-pandemic levels⁴.
4. Climate Reversal:
   • All federal clean-energy tax credits are phased out over three years. Solar, wind, and EV subsidies are eliminated.
   • Federal lands opened to oil and gas leases; EPA regulations relaxed on methane and water standards.
5. Debt Ceiling Increase:
   • The statutory limit is raised by $5 trillion, with no offsetting revenue sources—risking further credit downgrades⁵.

The Human Consequences
What does this mean for ordinary Americans?

• A single mother working two part-time jobs will now be required to document consistent employment to retain her children’s Medicaid access—even if unstable hours or illness make that impossible.
• An elderly widow receiving SNAP assistance will see her monthly food budget fall by $70, with no corresponding rise in pension or housing support.
• A disabled man in a rural area may lose both his healthcare provider and his energy assistance while watching his rent increase and his town’s only clinic shut its doors due to lack of funding.

Economists at the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute estimate that poverty rates could increase by 15% nationwide, with Black and Hispanic households disproportionately affected due to demographic reliance on targeted programs⁶.

A Theological Reckoning
The bill is not merely a matter of economics. It poses a grave moral and spiritual question: what kind of society are we choosing to become?

Catholic social teaching, especially as developed in Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, and Caritas in Veritate, insists upon the inviolable dignity of every human person, and calls for a state that promotes the common good, not only economic efficiency. Key principles violated by this legislation include:

• Preferential Option for the Poor: “The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation” (USCCB, Economic Justice for All, §86). This bill discards that claim.
• Subsidiarity: Rather than empowering local clinics and communities, OBBBA imposes top-down cuts and bureaucratic restrictions, hollowing out civil society and Church-based services.
• Solidarity: By pitting taxpayer against recipient, and prioritising power over mercy, the bill fractures national unity and moral cohesion.

The Illusion of Prosperity
Some argue that the bill encourages work and responsibility. But when those unable to work—due to disability, caretaking, or economic dislocation—are punished, the state ceases to be a steward of justice and becomes an instrument of oppression. Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against the “throwaway culture” that deems human lives expendable in the name of growth.

Moreover, the bill offers no path to long-term fiscal sustainability. Tax cuts for the wealthy, even if temporarily stimulative, are coupled with soaring military expenditures and no systemic entitlement reform. This is not responsible governance—it is fiscal theatre masking social abandonment.

The Church Must Respond

• Parish Charities Will Be Overwhelmed: Caritas, Catholic Charities, and diocesan aid programs already operating on razor-thin margins will face a tidal wave of new need—especially in inner cities and rural dioceses.
• Silence is Complicity: Bishops, priests, and laity must recover their prophetic voice. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality.” We must name this bill for what it is: a rejection of Christian charity in favour of Caesar’s favour.
• The Witness of Works: The corporal works of mercy—feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, healing the sick—must become not just acts of kindness, but acts of resistance to a regime of indifference.

Conclusion
Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” is a legal monument to political dominance—but a spiritual monument to moral decay. It tells the poor: you are on your own. It tells the Church: stand aside. But to that, the Gospel answers: No. We will not stand aside. We will kneel with the suffering, speak for the voiceless, and serve until Caesar’s law bends before Christ’s reign. 🔝

¹ Congressional Budget Office, “Distributional Effects of OBBBA,” June 2025.
² Kaiser Family Foundation, “Projected Medicaid Losses under OBBBA,” July 2025.
³ USDA Office of Policy Support, SNAP Forecasting Report, 2025.
⁴ Homeland Security Appropriations Summary, July 2025.
⁵ Moody’s Investor Services, “U.S. Fiscal Outlook Post-OBBBA,” July 2025.
⁶ Brookings Institution, “Poverty and Welfare Impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill,” July 2025.

---

Why Starmer Is Doomed: The Collapse of State Legitimacy in Britain
An analysis of Aris Roussinos’ 4 July 2025 essay

The central thesis of Aris Roussinos’ striking essay for UnHerd is that the United Kingdom is not merely experiencing governmental incompetence or party-political fatigue—it is undergoing a full-blown crisis of state legitimacy, paralleling the late-Soviet collapse. Sir Keir Starmer, far from being a stabilising figure, is cast as the emblem of a dying regime, the final caretaker of a political order that no longer commands the allegiance of its people.

The Starmer Government’s Swift Decline
Roussinos opens with a blunt observation: the euphoric optimism surrounding Labour’s landslide in 2024 has, within a single year, disintegrated. The symbolism of a weeping Chancellor and a leader adrift is less about Starmer personally than about the hollowness of the system he represents. Though Labour has a historic majority, it lacks power—hemmed in by its own contradictions, paralysed by factionalism, and alienated from a fracturing electorate.

A Structural Crisis, Not a Leadership Crisis
This is not merely the story of another failed premiership. Roussinos insists, drawing on the example of late 19th-century Ireland and Soviet Russia, that Britain’s problem is structural: a loss of legitimacy, authority, and cohesion. The UK’s governing class, he argues, is attempting to command a nation it no longer understands, let alone represents. Even existential threats—like warnings of war—fail to galvanise a population that feels alienated from the state itself.

The state is increasingly regarded not as a neutral arbiter or protector of the common good, but as an occupying structure imposed on the historical and cultural identity of the native population. Like the USSR in the late 1980s, the UK faces what John Hutchinson called a “blocked mobility” crisis, wherein a new counter-elite—composed of disaffected graduates and intellectuals on the Right—emerges to contest the legitimacy of the state through cultural nationalism.

From Blair’s ‘New Britain’ to Post-UK Nationalism
Roussinos sees Tony Blair’s constitutional reforms and demographic changes as the founding act of a new polity—what some now disparagingly call “Yookay.” This new state, globalist in orientation and deliberately post-national in identity, stands in tension with the historical concept of Britain as a culturally cohesive nation. The backlash, he argues, is the logical outgrowth of this social engineering.

Lord Frost’s distinction between “Britain” and “Yookay” captures a growing mood: that the current UK is not merely declining but illegitimate, a Blairite successor state built atop the ruins of real Britain. This view, increasingly mainstream on the Right, mirrors how post-Soviet Russian nationalism distinguished Russia from the USSR.

The Lessons of the USSR’s Collapse
Drawing on Hutchinson’s 1994 Modern Nationalism, Roussinos maps the parallels between Soviet disintegration and the UK’s present trajectory. As ethnic Russians once withdrew their support from a Soviet state they felt no longer served them, so too, he argues, are the British retreating from a UK state they see as alien. The legitimacy of civic identity, which once united a multinational UK, is being replaced by a resurgent ethnic and cultural nationalism—particularly English.

In this light, Starmer is not a leader with a vision, but an empty figurehead presiding over an accelerating collapse. He is to Britain what Gorbachev was to the USSR: a reformer fatally out of sync with the nation’s mood, unable to either uphold the old order or birth a new one.

What Comes After Starmer?
Perhaps the most ominous note is Roussinos’ speculation about what might follow the breakdown. The Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, is seen not as the populist climax but as the last gasp of a system trying to save itself through controlled opposition. More radical currents—like Rupert Lowe’s “Restore Britain” or Robert Jenrick’s nationalist rhetoric—may more accurately reflect the emerging future.

“Restore Britain” is not just a slogan but a mission to dismantle Blair’s constitutional legacy and reinstate a culturally coherent state—one that answers the anxieties over demographic change, sovereignty, and cultural fragmentation. Whether this vision can be achieved peacefully, or will instead lead to confrontation, remains the open question.

Conclusion: A Historic Interregnum
We are living, Roussinos argues, not in a time of routine political change, but in an interregnum—a term borrowed from Gramsci to describe the unstable middle period when the old has died but the new cannot yet be born. In this context, personalities matter little. Starmer, like others who will follow, is caught in a current beyond his control. The real question is not whether he survives but what replaces the failing order he represents.

Whether one fears the nationalist reaction or welcomes it as a return to sanity, Roussinos’ essay makes clear: the centre cannot hold. The UK’s problem is no longer about policy, party, or prime minister. It is about legitimacy, identity, and the very survival of the state. 🔝

1. Andrew Marr, BBC Question Time commentary and later article on “race war” anxieties.
2. Tom McTague, New Statesman, on Starmer as “the last leader of the old normal.”
3. John Hutchinson, Modern Nationalism (1994), on cultural nationalism, blocked mobility, and the Soviet Union.
4. Lord Frost on the distinction between “Britain” and “Yookay.”
5. Robert Jenrick on the collapse of the old order and the political interregnum.
6. Analogies with Soviet Russia’s ethnic crisis and political collapse post-Gorbachev.

---

Three New Political Movements Signal Britain’s Growing Political Fragmentation

In a striking sign of realignment across the British political spectrum, three new political movements were launched this past week, each positioning itself as a corrective to the failures of the status quo. After one year of Labour government under Sir Keir Starmer, the initial aura of managerial competence and electoral consensus has eroded. Rising disaffection, policy inertia, and a deepening ideological void have left many voters politically homeless. The new movements—two from the populist Right and one from the socialist Left—each claim to speak for a silenced moral majority.

The Independent Left: Corbyn and Sultana Break Away
On 3 July, Zarah Sultana MP resigned from the Labour Party and announced the formation of a new left-wing movement, co-led with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Although the name has yet to be finalised, media reports have referred to the project as the “Independent Alliance.” It aims to restore socialist politics rooted in economic justice, anti-imperialism, and state interventionism—principles which Sultana and Corbyn argue have been abandoned by Starmer’s Labour.

At the launch, Sultana condemned Labour’s direction, declaring it “a party that promises stability for capital while leaving millions behind.”¹ The movement will focus on welfare expansion, wealth redistribution, housing rights, and opposition to foreign wars—reviving much of the 2017–2019 Corbynite platform.

However, internal disagreements have already emerged, particularly regarding party structure and messaging.² Critics suggest that the alliance may simply replicate the ideological purism and factionalism that contributed to Labour’s 2019 electoral collapse. Nonetheless, it marks the most serious left-wing schism since Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party, and could pose a significant challenge in inner-city constituencies where Labour has lost its radical base.

Advance UK: Ben Habib’s Bid to Outflank Farage
On 30 June, Ben Habib, the former Brexit Party MEP and ex-deputy leader of Reform UK, launched Advance UK, a populist centre-right party intended to offer a more democratic and constitutionally grounded alternative to Nigel Farage’s movement.³

Advance UK’s platform centres on restoring parliamentary sovereignty, defending free speech, opposing technocracy, and introducing a “college” system for grassroots-driven policy formulation. Habib criticised the top-down style of Reform UK, suggesting that Farage’s leadership had stifled internal debate and become fixated on spectacle over substance.

Advance UK is tailored to appeal to socially conservative, pro-Brexit voters alienated by the cultural radicalism of Labour and the dysfunction of the Conservative Party. It hopes to channel the populist energy of the post-Referendum era into a more stable and principled political vehicle.

Restore Britain: The Legalistic Right Enters the Fray
Also on 30 June, former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe launched Restore Britain—not as a registered party, but as a political company focused on media, legal, and policy campaigns. It bills itself as a “constitutional resistance movement” intent on restoring British values, cutting immigration, and challenging institutional capture by progressive ideology.⁴

Restore Britain combines traditional conservative themes—border control, Christian identity, family values—with legal activism and public mobilisation. Its motto, “Carpet-bomb wokery,” reflects its unapologetic cultural agenda.⁵ Lowe has indicated the movement may support candidates or launch public interest litigation rather than stand in elections directly, for now.

Its advisory board includes prominent anti-woke figures, including former Conservative London Assembly leader Susan Hall. By rejecting party registration, Restore Britain seeks to operate with flexibility while wielding influence on policy debates and public discourse—especially in areas of immigration, free speech, and education.

Conclusion: A Fractured Political Horizon
The emergence of these movements, each with different organisational strategies and ideological foundations, speaks to a deeper crisis in British political life. After twelve months of Labour government marked by rhetorical moderation but ideological ambiguity, challenges are emerging not just from a diminished Tory opposition, but from entirely new political formations.

Advance UK and Restore Britain aim to capitalise on Reform UK’s vulnerabilities and seize the cultural high ground from a fragmented conservative movement. Meanwhile, the Independent Alliance hopes to resurrect the moral and economic radicalism that many feel Starmer has sacrificed on the altar of electability.

Yet the proliferation of micro-parties also risks diffusing influence and splitting opposition. On both Left and Right, unity remains elusive. Whether these ventures represent a new beginning or another chapter in Britain’s political dysfunction will depend on their ability to connect with an exhausted electorate—and to offer more than slogans and schisms. 🔝

¹ Zarah Sultana, quoted in The Guardian, 3 July 2025.
² “Ex-Labour MP Sultana announces new leftwing party with Jeremy Corbyn,” Financial Times, 3 July 2025.
³ Ben Habib, founding statement, Advance UK, 30 June 2025.
⁴ “Rupert Lowe launches anti-woke movement to ‘carpet-bomb wokery’,” The Sun, 1 July 2025.
⁵ Ibid.

---

A Blasphemy Law in All But Name? The Islamophobia Working Group and the Threat to Free Speech

The Labour-led revival of a definition of “Islamophobia” has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, campaigners, and former government advisers, who warn that the project may amount to the back-door reintroduction of blasphemy law in Britain. The definition under review by Angela Rayner’s Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred and Islamophobia is viewed by many as dangerously expansive, likely to criminalise legitimate criticism of Islamic beliefs and practices, and is being pursued, critics say, in secret and without due process.

A Panel Without Dissent
The five-person working group, chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC, includes Baroness Shaista Gohir and Akeela Ahmed, both of whom have previously endorsed the controversial 2018 All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) definition of Islamophobia¹. That definition declares Islamophobia to be “rooted in racism” and describes it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” The wording is so broad as to encompass virtually any criticism of Islam or Islamic cultural practices, critics say, and could undermine the Waddington Amendment, which protects free discussion of religion under the Public Order Act 1986².

Lord Walney, former government adviser on political violence, has urged the term Islamophobia be dropped entirely, warning of a “chilling effect on free speech”³. Lord Young of Acton, Director of the Free Speech Union (FSU), concurs. “If the Deputy Prime Minister presses ahead,” he warns, “we won’t hesitate to bring a judicial review in the High Court”⁴.

Grooming Gangs: From Scandal to Silence
The inclusion of Baroness Gohir has drawn particular concern. In a 2013 report, she argued that media coverage of grooming gang convictions involving British Pakistani men was “disproportionate” and that it helped “fuel racism and Islamophobia”⁵. This line of argument—since repeated in the APPG report—was precisely what Baroness Louise Casey identified in her 2022 review as a principal reason why vulnerable white working-class girls were left unprotected for decades. Fear of appearing “Islamophobic” prevented authorities from intervening⁶.

A Consultation in Name Only
Despite being framed as a national consultation, the “call for evidence” launched by the working group was not publicly announced and only came to light after a leak. According to Freddie Attenborough of the FSU, it was a “gerrymandered process” that excluded groups likely to oppose the APPG definition, including Christian Concern, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, Don’t Divide Us, and the Oxford Institute for British Islam⁷.

“There are no questions inviting concerns about potential impacts on the right to freedom of speech,” Lord Young said. “Nor does the call for evidence actively seek out alternative perspectives”⁸. Indeed, the group’s terms of reference confirm that its advice to ministers will remain private and unpublished—a direct violation of government transparency codes⁹.

Towards a De Facto Blasphemy Law?
What is at stake, observers warn, is nothing less than the legal reclassification of criticism of Islam as racial hatred. While racial discrimination must rightly be condemned and prosecuted, the conflation of race with religion—especially a religion with political and legal dimensions like Islam—creates new categories of forbidden speech. As Spiked notes, under the APPG framework, even criticisms of grooming gangs, immigration, or Islamist extremism could be **legally rebranded as racist ‘Islamophobia’**¹⁰.

Yet as British law currently stands, such criticism is protected. The Waddington Amendment makes clear that “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents” do not constitute hate speech¹¹.

The Verdict: Censorship by Stealth
The Islamophobia Working Group appears not to be weighing competing concerns about community cohesion and free expression. Rather, it is executing a preordained ideological agenda with the blessing of senior Labour figures, behind closed doors, and in defiance of democratic norms.

This is not policymaking—it is doctrine crafting, and the doctrine in question would silence criticism of an ideology that must remain open to public debate, scrutiny, and reform. With legal action now on the horizon, the fate of free speech in Britain may soon be decided not in Parliament, but in the High Court. 🔝

1. APPG on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined, 2018.
2. Public Order Act 1986, Section 29J (Waddington Amendment), added via the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
3. Lord Walney, statement reported in The Telegraph, 26 June 2025.
4. Lord Young of Acton, FSU letter to Angela Rayner, June 2025.
5. Shaista Gohir, Unheard Voices, Muslim Women’s Network UK, 2013.
6. Baroness Louise Casey, Independent Review into CSE in Telford, 2022.
7. Freddie Attenborough, “Labour wants to silence criticism of Islam,” Spiked, 30 June 2025.
8. The Telegraph, 26 June 2025.
9. Cabinet Office, Consultation Principles 2018.
10. Attenborough, Spiked, 30 June 2025.
11. Public Order Act 1986, Section 29J.

---

Ideological Capture and the Betrayal of Law: The Battle Over Biological Sex in UK Institutions

A Clarification, Not a Creation
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, affirming that the word “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity¹. This was not a change in the law, but a definitive clarification. The Equality Act has always treated sex as a biological reality, as evident in provisions on pregnancy, maternity, and single-sex services².

Nevertheless, the ruling has caused a political and bureaucratic storm. Public bodies, especially in Scotland and parts of England, have continued to implement policies based on gender identity ideology. In doing so, they are now acting outside the law.

The Law on Single-Sex Spaces
Under the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3 explicitly allows for lawful single-sex exceptions where they are a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”³. These exceptions cover spaces where sex differences matter: changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards, and accommodation. The Act also affirms that these exceptions remain valid even when a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate⁴.

The April ruling confirmed that no reinterpretation of the Act may override this legal balance. Biological sex remains the defining criterion for single-sex provisions. Activist-influenced reinterpretations—especially those redefining “woman” to include male-born individuals—have no legal standing.

Starmer: The Law Must Now Be Implemented
In July 2025, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer intervened publicly, stating that all institutions “must implement” the Supreme Court ruling “as soon as possible.” He criticised the widespread excuse offered by foot-dragging organisations—that they are waiting for formal EHRC guidance—even though the Commission issued interim clarification immediately after the ruling affirming its immediate effect⁵.

Maya Forstater, Chief Executive of Sex Matters, welcomed the Prime Minister’s stance. “This is an important intervention given the huge number of public bodies operating outside the law,” she said. “There is no need to wait”⁶.

The Football Association (FA) moved swiftly to end the inclusion of trans-identifying males in women’s competitions from June 1st, showing that where there is will, there is legal capacity. Their decision followed a case in which a teenage girl, penalised for questioning an opponent’s sex, was reinstated after legal challenge⁷.

The EHRC’s Future and Public Defiance
Some institutions had quietly pinned their hopes on a change in leadership at the EHRC, expecting a new Chair might reinterpret the Court’s judgment. But the government’s nominee, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, has a robust record supporting women punished for expressing gender-critical beliefs⁸. Her appointment is likely to reinforce rather than dilute the Court’s ruling.

The Public Sector Equality Duty
The ruling reinforces obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act: the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This compels public authorities to eliminate discrimination and consciously assess the impact of their decisions on all protected characteristics—including sex and gender reassignment. The law does not permit automatic prioritisation of one over the other. Where competing interests exist, lawful balancing is required⁹.

Failure to carry out proper Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs), especially under ideological pressure, may now constitute unlawful conduct.

Brighton & Hove: A Case Study in Institutional Defiance
In Brighton & Hove, a local secondary school quietly introduced mixed-sex changing rooms without notifying parents. After a prolonged FOI campaign, parents discovered that the school:

• Conducted no risk assessments for mixed-sex toilets;
• Claimed changing room assessments could not be disclosed due to “personal data”;
• Had no recorded training for staff on policy changes;
• Relied solely on the Local Authority’s “Trans Inclusion Toolkit”, not its own EqIA;
• Consulted legal advisors but refused to disclose their reasoning¹⁰.

The school’s stalling tactics—delaying FOI responses until the summer break and offering evasive answers—have prompted the threat of judicial review. Parents are also preparing to alert the school’s liability insurer, noting that failure to comply with statutory duties may invalidate cover and expose the insurer to secondary liability.

Another Brighton & Hove school reportedly permitted mixed sleeping arrangements on a residential trip—again, without parental consent. This confirms the problem is not isolated, but systemic within the Local Authority.

Institutional Accountability and the Rule of Law

Public bodies are not entitled to delay compliance based on hoped-for ideological shifts or evolving social norms. The Supreme Court has spoken; the Equality Act remains unamended; the EHRC has confirmed immediate implementation.

If public institutions wish to change the law, they must lobby Parliament. Until then, they are bound—legally, morally, and constitutionally—to uphold what Parliament has enacted and the courts have clarified. Anything else is lawlessness in public service.

The task now falls not only to politicians but to parents, educators, lawyers, and citizens: to reclaim legal integrity, restore clarity, and protect those most vulnerable to institutional negligence. 🔝

¹ For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.
² Equality Act 2010, Part 2, s.4; cf. Schedule 3, Part 7.
³ Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Paras 26–28.
⁴ Ibid., and see FWS v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, para 59.
⁵ EHRC Interim Guidance, April 2025.
⁶ Maya Forstater, quoted in The Times, 1 July 2025.
⁷ FSU legal update, June 2025.
⁸ Government announcement, preferred candidate for EHRC Chair, July 2025.
⁹ Equality Act 2010, s.149; Croft v Royal Mail Group [2003] EWCA Civ 1045.
¹⁰ Mumsnet discussion thread: “Single Sex Changing Spaces in Brighton Secondary Schools – Part 4”, June 2025.

---

A Blow Against Global Censorship: Billboard Chris and the Reassertion of Free Speech

A victory in Australia sets a precedent for resisting ideological speech control worldwide
In a ruling with global implications for free speech and digital sovereignty, the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has overturned a censorship order against Canadian activist Billboard Chris (Chris Elston), affirming that biological truth-telling is not cyber-abuse. The decision marks a rare but significant legal repudiation of ideologically driven attempts to redefine harm in service of gender ideology.

The origins of the case
In February 2024, Chris Elston posted a short comment on X (formerly Twitter), sharing a Daily Mail article about a transgender activist appointed to a World Health Organization advisory panel. His accompanying comment simply read: “She’s a woman who changed her name.”

That sentence, grounded in biological and linguistic reality, triggered a formal takedown request from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who claimed the post amounted to “cyber-abuse material” under the Online Safety Act 2021. X, under threat of crippling fines, geo-blocked the post in Australia but refused to remove it globally. Elston, with legal backing from ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, challenged the order in the Tribunal.

The ruling: Truth is not abuse
The Tribunal delivered a resounding rebuke to the eSafety Commissioner’s attempt to redefine factual statements as harmful speech. It concluded that “an ordinary reasonable person” would not interpret the post as intending to cause serious harm or as using vitriolic, abusive, or malicious language¹. The ruling clarified that the Tribunal’s function was not to assess the correctness or popularity of the views expressed, but to evaluate whether the content met the legal threshold for cyber-abuse².

This distinction is crucial. As ADF International’s Robert Clarke noted, the decision “sends a strong message that truth is a defence, and that freedom of speech cannot be held hostage by ideological sensitivities”³.

Reasserting legal boundaries
The Tribunal’s ruling is a rare instance in which an increasingly overreaching regulatory apparatus was brought back within the bounds of legal objectivity. Katherine Deves, writing in The Spectator Australia, warned that “laws designed to prevent genuine abuse are now routinely weaponised to silence dissent from state-sanctioned ideology,” particularly when it comes to debates over sex and gender⁴. The Tribunal’s verdict suggests that at least some parts of the legal system still retain the capacity to distinguish between real harm and politically constructed offense.

The wider stakes: Transnational censorship and ideological colonisation
Had the eSafety Commissioner succeeded, the implications would have been far-reaching. A bureaucratic authority in one country would have acquired the power to suppress speech across borders, platforms, and legal jurisdictions. This would have enabled a model of censorship based not on defamation, incitement, or credible harm—but on ideological alignment with gender orthodoxy.

The significance was not lost on Elon Musk’s X, which joined the legal fight. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported, the company refused to comply with the takedown demand and defended Elston’s right to post⁵. This corporate resistance, combined with grassroots support from over 30,000 CitizenGO signatories, was instrumental in forcing a legal resolution rather than capitulation.

The challenge ahead
While this victory is a milestone, it does not signal the end of the censorship trend. Regulatory agencies like Australia’s eSafety Commissioner continue to promote a worldview in which truth must yield to identity politics. The UK, Canada, and the EU are all exploring or enforcing similar content moderation regimes—often under the guise of “online safety.”

The political class, notably silent during this legal battle, shows little appetite for confronting these excesses. As such, the burden of resistance remains with civil society, independent legal groups, and ordinary citizens.

Conclusion
The AAT’s ruling affirms a principle that should never have been in doubt: that speaking the truth about sex is not a form of violence. That such a case had to be fought—and that it required international legal defence—is a sobering reminder of the ideological capture of public institutions. But it is also a sign of hope: that the rule of law, properly applied, can still defend reality against the distortions of power.

Let us hope it marks the beginning of a broader pushback, not just in Australia, but across the Western world. 🔝

1. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Ruling, quoted in ADF International, “Free Speech Victory in Australia for Billboard Chris,” July 1, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Robert Clarke, “A Blow to Global Censorship: Billboard Chris Wins in Australia,” Daily Wire, July 1, 2025.
4. Katherine Deves, “Legislating Identity: The Erosion of Sex-Based Rights,” Spectator Australia, July 1, 2025.
5. Nick Bonyhady, “Elon Musk’s X Wins ‘Free Speech’ Fight Against eSafety Commissioner,” Sydney Morning Herald, July 1, 2025.

---

Defending the Rank and File: Richard Cooke, Police Federation, and the Ideological Capture of Representation

When Richard Cooke, former Chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, posted a measured defence of his members on social media, he could not have anticipated that doing so would cost him his office. In response to a Channel 4 News report alleging widespread racism and misogyny within the force, Mr Cooke wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “I don’t recognise these attitudes. They do not represent us – we are an anti-racist organisation.”¹ That was enough to trigger complaints from two officers who appeared in the programme. Cooke was suspended by the Police Federation of England and Wales, barred from re-election for three years, and ordered to undergo mandatory “equality, diversity and inclusion” (EDI) training.²

Cooke’s case—now the subject of a legal challenge supported by the Free Speech Union (FSU)—is being combined with that of Rick Prior, the former Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation. Prior was similarly suspended for stating that police officers had become increasingly nervous about stopping people from ethnic minorities, due to the fear of being accused of racism.³ He was not voicing his personal prejudice, but reporting what the rank-and-file had been telling him “for months.”

The principle at stake is not simply the right of federation chairs to express controversial opinions, but their duty to represent the views of the officers who elected them. Cooke was elected Chair three times by the 7,000 officers of West Midlands Police.⁴ As he told The Telegraph: “I have been removed from office for speaking out in defence of my members and for reflecting their views, which is what I was elected to do.”⁵ This is precisely the function of a Federation Chair: to speak on behalf of colleagues who cannot safely or easily speak for themselves. That Cooke is now facing sanction for fulfilling his role is a sign of institutional capture.

The Free Speech Union’s Director, Lord Toby Young, captured the reversal with biting clarity:
“Twenty-five years ago, a Police Federation Chair would have been suspended for disparaging his fellow officers. Today, you get suspended for defending them.”⁶

The pattern is increasingly familiar across public service sectors. A governing ideology of suspicion and “equity” now overrides collegial loyalty, procedural justice, or freedom of conscience. Institutional elites are beholden not to those they represent but to an abstract framework of “inclusion” defined by opaque bureaucracies and enforced through fear. Representation itself is redefined: not the duty to speak for one’s members, but the obligation to reinforce the dominant narrative. Cooke’s mild defence of officers and denial of generalised institutional guilt was treated not as an act of solidarity, but as defiance against the new orthodoxy.

As The Conservative Woman observed in their coverage, Cooke’s case illustrates a deeper shift in police culture.⁷ Once, the frontline officer was seen as the embodiment of public service, doing a difficult job with courage, discipline, and restraint. Now, the emphasis has shifted to risk-aversion, self-policing, and moral re-education. The institutional narrative assumes that racism and bias are latent in the rank and file, and that those who do not accept this assumption must be either reformed or removed. Cooke’s protest—that the officers he knew and led were not as they had been portrayed—was neither strident nor political. It was loyal. But loyalty is no longer enough.

The deeper concern is the erosion of trust and morale in public institutions. If internal representatives are no longer permitted to articulate the concerns of their members, where can that energy go? Either it is repressed—leading to silence, cynicism, and disengagement—or it finds other channels, such as anonymous leaks, public resignations, or politicised external campaigns. None of this serves justice, order, or the public good.

The principle of subsidiarity—a cornerstone of Catholic social teaching—affirms that matters should be handled at the lowest possible level, by those most directly involved. In a functioning institution, that means giving weight to those on the front line and ensuring that their representatives can speak without fear. Instead, a top-down ideology now silences dissent, infantilises professionals, and replaces deliberation with indoctrination. This is not reform, but deformation.

Mr Cooke’s legal challenge, if successful, may prove a turning point. At stake is more than his job or his honour. It is the right of any worker in a public-facing role to be heard by the very institution they serve. It is also a test case in whether truth, loyalty, and democratic representation still have a place in modern British policing—or whether they have been permanently subordinated to a new culture of managerial compliance and ideological control.

If officers are no longer allowed to defend themselves—or be defended—then the public has every reason to worry. For if the law’s guardians are gagged, who will speak for justice? 🔝

¹ Richard Cooke, quoted in The Conservative Woman, “Another police representative bites the dust – his crime? Sticking up for his members,” 3 July 2025.
² Ibid. Cooke was suspended by the Police Federation of England and Wales after two internal complaints.
³ Ibid. Rick Prior’s statement referred to widely shared concerns among officers about racial profiling accusations.
⁴ The Telegraph, “Police federation chair sacked for denying ‘widespread’ racism in force,” quoted in The Conservative Woman, op. cit.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Lord Toby Young, Director of the Free Speech Union, statement cited in The Conservative Woman, op. cit.
⁷ Ibid. Editorial analysis highlighting the shift in institutional priorities and treatment of internal speech.

---

Synthetic Embryo Breakthrough Raises Ethical and Scientific Questions

In a scientific milestone that has stunned researchers and bioethicists alike, a team at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel announced in September 2023 the creation of a synthetic human embryo model from stem cells — without the use of sperm, egg, or womb. This synthetic construct was grown up to the 14-day limit agreed upon in most international bioethics protocols, during which it developed several recognisably human structures, including a primitive heart tube that began to beat.

An Embryo Without Conception
The experiment was led by Professor Jacob Hanna, a leading figure in developmental biology. Using human pluripotent stem cells reprogrammed from adult skin cells, Hanna’s team succeeded in coaxing these cells to self-organise into a model that closely mimics a natural human embryo at a critical point in its development. Notably, this was achieved without any genetic editing or cloning.¹

The embryo model replicated key features found in embryos at around day 14 post-fertilisation:

• A yolk sac, the first source of nourishment in embryonic life.
• Placental-like tissue, essential for future fetal development.
• A primitive streak, which marks the start of body axis formation and is the earliest sign of the nervous system.
• A beating heart tube, a precursor to the fully formed heart.²

Despite these astonishing achievements, it is crucial to note that the structure does not qualify as a viable human embryo. It cannot develop into a fetus, lacks the full genetic orchestration of human embryogenesis, and was stopped before forming a nervous system, in line with ethical restrictions.³

Bioethical Implications and Safeguards
This work walks a fine ethical line. For decades, the so-called 14-day rule has served as a consensus-based threshold for embryonic research — underpinned not by religious dogma, but by the recognition that day 14 marks the emergence of the primitive streak and the beginning of individuation.⁴ Beyond this point, an embryo could theoretically develop into a sentient organism if implanted — hence the ethical caution.

The Weizmann team strictly adhered to this limit, and Professor Hanna himself has stated that the goal of this research is not to produce babies in a lab, but to better understand the mysteries of early human development — a phase that has, until now, remained largely invisible and inaccessible.⁵

Scientific Promise
The implications are profound. First, this model allows for the study of congenital diseases and the testing of early-stage pregnancy medications without relying on natural embryos or animal models. Second, it may pave the way for new approaches to treat infertility, improve in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates, and deepen our knowledge of human organ formation.⁶

Theoretically, lessons from this research could be applied to the emerging field of organogenesis, where scientists hope to one day grow organs from scratch for transplantation. Understanding how organs self-assemble in the embryonic stage is a prerequisite for such ambitions.⁷

Limits and Misunderstandings
However, the synthetic embryo model is not a step toward creating lab-grown humans. It is not capable of implantation in a womb, cannot survive outside highly regulated lab conditions, and does not have the potential to develop into a fully formed baby.⁸ Media claims suggesting otherwise risk sensationalism and confusion about what this research actually represents.

As Professor Hanna himself emphasised, “Our models can be used to answer questions that until now could only be speculated on — like why so many pregnancies fail to implant and why there are such high rates of miscarriage in the first weeks.”⁹

Theological and Anthropological Reflections
From a theological perspective, the Catholic tradition affirms that human life begins at conception, when a unique soul is infused by God. A synthetic model that never involves the fusion of gametes — sperm and egg — and never possesses the potential for human individuation, therefore, does not constitute a human person. Nonetheless, the reverence owed to human life must extend analogously to any research that touches on the mystery of human origin, lest technological capability begin to eclipse moral wisdom.

Moreover, while this development does not represent a breach of the moral order in itself, it opens doors to future research trajectories that may. Without firm ethical boundaries grounded in the dignity of the human person, such work risks becoming a stepping stone toward commodifying or manufacturing human life, even if unintentionally.

Conclusion
The synthetic embryo created by the Weizmann Institute is a major advance in developmental biology. It holds promise for medicine, fertility research, and a deeper understanding of the earliest moments of human life. Yet it also calls for renewed vigilance from ethicists, theologians, and legislators. In our pursuit of knowledge, we must remember that not all that is technically possible is morally permissible. 🔝

1. Hanna, J. et al. A complete synthetic human embryo model from pluripotent stem cells. Preprint announced via press release, Weizmann Institute of Science, Sept. 2023.
2. Ibid.
3. Lovell-Badge, R. (Chair, ISSCR Guidelines Committee). International Society for Stem Cell Research Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, 2021.
4. Warnock Report (1984), UK. Established the first formal recommendation of a 14-day limit on embryo research.
5. Hanna, J., quoted in Nature, Sept. 2023 coverage: “We didn’t implant them, and we’re not allowed to. But they grow as if they could.”
6. Hyun, I. et al. Embryo models: Ethical and policy considerations, Nature Cell Biology (2020).
7. Rossant, J. The New Embryology: Developmental Biology Meets Stem Cells, Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 2018.
8. de Miguel Beriain, I. Synthetic embryos: legal and ethical challenges, Journal of Law and the Biosciences (2023).
9. Hanna, J., in Weizmann Institute Newsroom, Sept. 2023: “This is not a blueprint for artificial reproduction; it is a tool for discovery.”

---

Allison Bailey Wins Landmark Case: Gender Critical Beliefs Upheld in Goods and Services Law

“Sex is Real”: British Court Confirms Anti-Gender Ideology Discrimination is Unlawful

In a groundbreaking legal decision with far-reaching implications for equality law and freedom of belief in the United Kingdom, barrister and gender-critical campaigner Allison Bailey has won her claim for discrimination in the supply of services against Linnaeus Veterinary Limited, trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group. This is the first time a British court has recognised that denying goods or services on the basis of a person’s belief that sex is binary, biological, immutable, and meaningful constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

A New Precedent for Service Users
The judgment, handed down by His Honour Judge Holmes, is the first successful judgment affirming the protected status of gender-critical belief in the context of service provision. It builds on recent case law — notably Forstater v CGD Europe — which established that gender-critical beliefs fall within the scope of protection as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act. But while Forstater and others have concerned employment rights, Bailey’s case marks the first time that such beliefs have been vindicated in the context of goods and services, expanding the application of protection beyond the workplace.

Bailey, a lesbian and prominent critic of gender ideology, was a client of Palmerston Vets for thirteen years when she was abruptly expelled in 2023. She had not raised any issues of sex or gender identity herself, but was reportedly targeted following her previous high-profile legal action against Garden Court Chambers, which also ended in a ruling in her favour. Her views — that gender identity ideology is pseudoscientific, quasi-religious, and harmful to women, children, and same-sex attracted people — were known within the practice, and according to evidence, created internal division among staff.

Judicial Critique of Activist Culture
The judge found that Bailey had received no warning of the expulsion, and that policies regarding removal of clients were not followed. Crucially, the court noted the presence of trans activist material throughout the veterinary group’s offices, and a staff meeting focused on trans rights held on the same day as the Forstater appeal judgment. The judge rejected the defence’s claim that Bailey had been rude to staff, finding the evidence “unreliable” and suggesting the practice was “a hair’s breadth” away from equating gender-critical views with bigotry — a stance clearly at odds with the law.

Victory for Free Expression and Legal Clarity
Speaking after the judgment, Bailey said the ruling “shows that it is unlawful to deny services to people who believe that sex is binary, biological, immutable and of vital importance.” She described her treatment as “a familiar story” for gender-critical women, who are often silenced or punished for expressing views that once constituted common sense.

Bailey further accused trans activism of capturing institutions “with unthinking thought and language,” and praised her legal team — Akua Reindorf KC and solicitor Peter Daly — for their determination in navigating an evasive and adversarial defendant.

Daly commented:

“An unquestioning acceptance of gender identity dogma, far from being a kind measure, can lead businesses into unlawful discrimination… This judgment is a line in the sand.”

He urged businesses to review their internal policies to avoid falling foul of equality law. Notably, the ruling makes clear that customers as well as employees have legal recourse when punished or excluded for holding gender-critical views.

The Next Legal Frontier
This judgment is expected to embolden further challenges where gender-critical individuals are excluded from services, clubs, associations, or facilities. The case underlines the shifting legal tide in Britain, where increasing judicial clarity is being offered on the question of belief versus compelled affirmation of gender ideology.

The court will reconvene shortly to determine damages and costs. Meanwhile, the Bailey ruling is likely to become a touchstone for future litigation involving belief, free expression, and the limits of ideological conformity. 🔝

¹ Forstater v CGD Europe and Others [2021] UKET 2200909/2019
² Equality Act 2010, s.10(2): “Belief” includes religious and philosophical belief.
³ Bailey v Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd, Judgment of HHJ Holmes, June 2025
⁴ See also Bailey v Garden Court Chambers [2022] ET/2202172/2020
⁵ Statement by Peter Daly, solicitor, Doyle Clayton LLP, July 2025
⁶ The tribunal confirmed that belief in biological sex is worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity.

---

COMMENT

---

Truth on Trial: Academic Freedom and the War on Sex-Based Research

What the DSIT Report Reveals about Activist Capture and the Collapse of Scientific Integrity in British Universities

In July 2025, the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) published its second landmark report on sex and gender: Barriers to Research on Sex and Gender¹. Its findings are devastating: a research culture where gender-critical scholars—those who affirm the importance of biological sex—face systemic censorship, harassment, and institutional discrimination. The report confirms what many suspected but few could publicly admit without risk to career or health: British academia is no longer a safe space for truth.

This is not a story of “both sides.” The report finds no documented examples of activists or academics who support gender-identity theory being deplatformed, harassed, or blocked from publishing or receiving funding². By contrast, those who affirm the reality and relevance of sex encounter barriers across every dimension of the research system—ethics approvals, funding bodies, conferences, student complaints, and internal HR procedures.

Compelled Speech and Ideological Orthodoxy
Among the most disturbing revelations is the rise of compelled speech. Academics report being pressured to affirm contested gender-identity beliefs or face exclusion from projects, risk to promotion, or formal complaints.

“I was required to agree, as a condition of joining a project team, that I would never refer to sex-based categories in any of my work or communication”³.

In another case, a professor in health sciences was told to rewrite a proposal to remove the phrase “pregnant women” in favour of “pregnant people.” Their research was delayed by over a year by internal interventions described by the report as exceeding the proper remit of ethics committees⁴. These are not isolated cases. They represent a culture shift where disagreement is no longer tolerated—even in research designed to test assumptions and hypotheses.

The Forstater⁵ and Phoenix⁶ legal judgments firmly established that belief in the immutability and significance of biological sex is protected under UK law. Yet universities and EDI departments continue to behave as if affirming these beliefs is inherently discriminatory. The result is widespread self-censorship and chilling effects.

Ethics Committees as Instruments of Suppression
Instead of safeguarding research integrity, ethics committees are often now used to block ideologically inconvenient work. Several testimonies in the report detail cases in which academic projects on sex-based rights were delayed, rewritten, or abandoned due to speculative reputational risk or activist opposition⁷.

“My ethics proposal was sent back three times. They flagged the phrase ‘biological male’ as a problem and asked whether my work risked reinforcing harmful stereotypes. I was studying male sex offenders in women’s prisons.”⁸

This inversion of ethical review—where evidence-based research is treated as dangerous, and speculative political beliefs as unchallengeable—is perhaps the most corrosive development of all. The DSIT report recommends that research ethics committees be stripped of powers to suppress sex-based inquiry, and that all reputational concerns be explicitly separated from ethical judgments⁹.

The ‘Stock Out’ Campaign: Case Study in Institutional Cowardice
The treatment of Professor Kathleen Stock is now infamous. A respected philosopher, Stock was forced to resign from the University of Sussex after sustained intimidation by activist students and the complicity of her colleagues and union.

The campaign included posters, masked protesters with flares, and an Instagram campaign titled Stock Out. The message: “Fire Kathleen Stock. Until then, you’ll see us around.”¹⁰ The student group later declared victory, boasting: “This has been a campaign to get Stock out of Sussex… and it fucking worked.”¹¹

The local University and College Union (UCU) branch issued a statement undermining Stock’s academic freedom, while the national UCU endorsed it. Stock, advised by police to install home CCTV, eventually stepped down. The DSIT report documents this harassment campaign in detail, noting the absence of any comparable campaign against those who hold gender-identity views¹².

Conclusion: Restore the University or Relinquish the Name
The DSIT report is not merely a catalogue of injustice. It is a call to arms: a plea to restore the university to its proper role as the guardian of reasoned inquiry and public truth. The institutions that once protected dissent and upheld the freedom to question now silence the very voices most needed for honest public debate.

In the name of inclusion, the university has institutionalised intolerance. In the name of safety, it has surrendered truth. Unless decisive reforms are adopted—especially those outlined in the report’s 20-point plan¹³—the British university system risks total ideological capture.

Science cannot survive under censorship. Scholarship cannot flourish under fear. Truth will find its defenders, whether in or outside the academy. But the cost of continued silence will be public trust—and that may never be recovered. 🔝

¹ Barriers to Research on Sex and Gender (DSIT, 2025), Executive Summary, pp. 4–11.
² Ibid., p. 9: “We are not aware of any equivalent campaign against an academic who disagrees with the gender-critical perspective.”
³ Ibid., §3.11 (Compelled Speech), p. 207.
⁴ Ibid., §3.10 (Research Ethics Processes), pp. 200–206.
⁵ Forstater v CGD Europe and Others [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ.
⁶ Phoenix v The Open University [2024], Employment Tribunal Judgment: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms_J_Pheonix_v_The_Open_University_3322700.2021___other_FMH_Reserved_Judgement.pdf
⁷ DSIT Report, §3.10 (Research Ethics Processes), p. 201.
⁸ Ibid., §3.10, p. 203.
⁹ Ibid., Recommendations 13f, 13g, 13h, pp. 16–17.
¹⁰ DSIT Report, Appendix 3 (Stock Out campaign material), pp. 407–425.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 248.
¹² Ibid., p. 7.
¹³ DSIT Report, “Recommendations,” pp. 12–20.

---

Safeguarding Undermined: How Ideology is Weakening Child Protection in Britain

An examination of how unconscious bias training and DEI policies have compromised the UK’s safeguarding system

The United Kingdom’s safeguarding framework, once regarded as an international exemplar of multi-agency cooperation and legal rigour, is now facing an unprecedented internal crisis. A growing body of analysis contends that the introduction and expansion of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) ideology—particularly through unconscious bias training—has significantly impaired the professional judgment essential to child protection. At the heart of this thesis is a disturbing claim: that the very instincts and moral reflexes that underpin safeguarding are now being systematically deconstructed in the name of ideological compliance¹.

This concern is not merely speculative. Since the 2010s, unconscious bias training and EDI policies have become embedded across the public sector—including education, healthcare, social services, and policing². These programmes were originally introduced to address discrimination and to encourage a more inclusive workplace culture. However, critics argue that they now function as psychosocial interventions, encouraging individuals to second-guess their perceptions, question their instincts, and suppress natural forms of discernment out of fear of appearing prejudiced³. This, they claim, undermines one of the foundational principles of safeguarding: the obligation to act decisively on early signs of harm or risk⁴.

Safeguarding—codified in legislation such as the Children Act 1989, Care Act 2014, and subsequent statutory guidance like Working Together to Safeguard Children—relies upon professional intuition as much as formal thresholds⁵. Effective protection of children and vulnerable adults often depends on the ability of teachers, doctors, and social workers to identify patterns, listen empathetically, and respond to concerning behaviour. Yet training that labels instinct as a form of unconscious bias may induce hesitation⁶. A teacher who notices a sudden change in a pupil’s identity or affect may now weigh professional caution against the risk of being accused of transphobia. A social worker may hesitate to act on concerns that appear culturally sensitive. A doctor may delay questioning parental influence on a child’s gender presentation for fear of professional reprisal⁷.

These outcomes are not hypothetical. In recent years, high-profile failures have exposed the inability—or unwillingness—of institutions to act when identity politics render a case “untouchable.” The national scandals around grooming gangs in Rotherham and other towns revealed how fear of appearing racist delayed intervention, resulting in widespread and prolonged child sexual exploitation⁸. More recently, the debate over gender-affirming care for children has raised questions about whether safeguarding standards have been subordinated to ideological affirmation. The Cass Review into gender services for children has already acknowledged that safeguarding processes have been inconsistently applied in this area⁹.

The underlying hypothesis is straightforward but sobering: safeguarding fails when professionals are no longer permitted to trust their judgement. If instincts are redefined as prejudices, and if caution is interpreted as bias, then early intervention—the cornerstone of modern safeguarding—is paralysed. Worse, professionals may feel isolated, unsupported, and even threatened if they raise concerns that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. The consequences are not merely procedural; they are moral and systemic¹⁰.

This is not an argument against inclusion or justice. It is an appeal to recover the integrity of safeguarding practice by distinguishing it clearly from ideological conformity. No policy, however well-intentioned, should place children at risk by silencing legitimate concern. Safeguarding must remain grounded in reality—rooted in evidence, compassion, and the freedom to speak uncomfortable truths.

The reassertion of clear safeguarding standards—based on the primacy of the child’s welfare, the professional’s duty of care, and the irreplaceable role of instinct—is urgent. Institutions must critically reassess the unintended consequences of EDI programmes that inhibit protective action. Professionals must be empowered to act without fear of ideological censure. And policymakers must ensure that the safeguarding framework remains faithful to its original purpose: to protect the vulnerable from harm, regardless of the political sensitivities involved.

If Britain is to reclaim its reputation for safeguarding excellence, it must begin by asking a difficult but necessary question: have we, in the pursuit of inclusion, forgotten how to protect? 🔝

1. EDI Jester, Safeguarding Means Protecting a Citizen, Substack, 2024, pp. 12–14.
2. Government Equalities Office, Unconscious Bias Training: A Guide for Employers, 2019.
3. British Psychological Society, “Psychology’s favourite tool for measuring implicit bias is still mired in controversy,” Research Digest, 2018.
4. Department for Education, Working Together to Safeguard Children, July 2018 (updated 2023), pp. 9–12.
5. Children Act 1989, s.17 and s.47; Care Act 2014, s.42; Working Together 2023.
6. Cass Review, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, Final Report, April 2024, pp. 62–68.
7. EDI Jester, op. cit., pp. 45–47.
8. Alexis Jay, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997–2013), August 2014.
9. Cass Review, op. cit., pp. 41–42, 78–80.
10. House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Reform of the Gender Recognition Act, HC 977, 2021; see also Jacob Rees-Mogg, “Government axes 250 woke civil service training courses,” The Telegraph, 1 Sept 2022.

---

Is the UK Still a Democracy? Freedom of Speech, Parliamentary Drift, and the Rise of Managerial Rule

Recent public concern over changes to the UK Parliament website, combined with declining international assessments of British free speech, has raised a pressing question: is Britain quietly abandoning representative democracy in favour of a technocratic, top-down model of governance? Evidence suggests that the role of MPs is being redefined, not to serve their constituents, but to follow party and state priorities under the guise of “the national interest.” At the same time, critics of policy decisions face mounting legal and cultural restrictions on speech.

The Disappearing Duty to Represent
Until recently, the official UK Parliament website defined the role of MPs as representing the interests and concerns of their constituents in the House of Commons. MPs, it stated, were to raise issues on behalf of the people who elected them, and hold ministers accountable through parliamentary questions, surgeries, and constituency visits. Ministers, too, were expected to retain their local obligations, even while serving in government.

But that language has now been quietly rewritten. As of June 2025, MPs are described merely as working in Parliament and their constituencies, with the freedom to divide their time as they choose. There is “no job description or contract of employment for MPs,” and no requirement that they prioritise their constituents’ views. In fact, the only reference to “interests” now allows that MPs “may also consider the best interests of the entire nation.”¹

This shift in emphasis—from representative accountability to managerial discretion—is not trivial. It alters the very nature of parliamentary legitimacy. In the words of legal commentator Alex of The Thinking Coalition, “MPs repeatedly fail to perform their responsibility to represent UK public interests and concerns in the House of Commons,”² often passing legislation “in the teeth of strong public opposition.” He cites as a prime example the recent approval of abortion up to birth, a policy overwhelmingly opposed by the general public, yet forced through without genuine public mandate.³

Free Speech in Decline
Coinciding with this parliamentary drift is the UK’s declining status in global assessments of free expression. The 2024 Global Expression Report by Article 19 downgraded the UK from “open” to “less restricted,” scoring just 79 out of 100.⁴ This ranking reflects an atmosphere where legal threats, cultural pressures, and ideological conformity increasingly chill public discourse.

The consequences are tangible. YouTuber and legal commentator Law by Ian shares that he was recently sued in the High Court for public commentary surrounding a road incident between a van and a cyclist.⁵ Though he was not party to the event, he was targeted for hosting third-party opinions in his comment section—a clear attempt to silence online critique through financial intimidation.

Others have faced similar efforts to suppress dissent. Defamation law and so-called “lawfare” are being deployed not only against those who defame unjustly, but often against ordinary individuals raising questions or expressing concern.⁶ The chilling effect is real and growing, especially in sensitive areas such as gender ideology, immigration policy, or critique of state institutions.

From Democracy to Technocracy?
The convergence of these trends—the withdrawal of MPs’ duty to represent their constituents, and the suppression of dissenting speech—points to a deeper shift in the British state. A government that neither listens to its people nor tolerates their speech may no longer function as a representative democracy, but as a technocracy: rule by managers who claim superior insight into the “national interest,” unburdened by the will of the electorate.

This is not a formal dictatorship. Elections still occur. Courts still operate. But the hollowing-out of meaningful representation and the narrowing of permitted opinion mean that democratic forms may persist without democratic substance.

Critics argue that this transformation is not accidental but ideological. Many modern policymakers see the electorate as dangerously misinformed, bigoted, or regressive—needing guidance, not consent. The replacement of democratic responsiveness with policy paternalism marks a fundamental departure from the constitutional assumptions of British parliamentary life.

A Warning and a Wake-Up Call
The British public now faces a critical juncture. If the role of MPs continues to drift toward national-level policy management rather than local representation, and if citizens’ ability to criticise or protest those decisions is further curtailed, then the UK risks transitioning from a constitutional democracy to a managed state, where the demos is merely tolerated, not heeded.

In this light, the recent website revision is more than a bureaucratic change—it is a symbolic watershed. The idea that an MP might no longer be formally expected to represent the views of their constituents, but instead to govern in accordance with undefined “national interests,” represents a serious and measurable departure from the principles of parliamentary representation.

As Nuntiatoria has consistently argued, the erosion of civic participation and natural rights—especially the right to speak the truth and be represented fairly—is not merely a political concern but a moral one. If we are not vigilant, the symbols of freedom may remain while the substance disappears. 🔝

1. “Role of an MP (Pre-June 2025 vs Post-June 2025),” analysis via Law by Ian, based on archived versions of www.parliament.uk.
2. Alex, The Thinking Coalition, “MPs No Longer Represent You,” Substack, June 2025.
3. See Hansard, June 2025: Parliamentary proceedings on amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill permitting abortion to birth.
4. Global Expression Report 2024, Article 19.
5. Ian, Law by Ian, YouTube commentary, July 2025.
6. See Free Speech Union, “Lawfare and the Silencing of Speech: A Growing Problem in the UK,” Policy Briefing, May 2025.

---

Abortion by the Back Door: Lords Must Reject Clause 191

On Tuesday 17th June 2025, the British Parliament crossed a chilling threshold. Under the guise of updating criminal justice legislation, MPs voted to fundamentally undermine what little legal protection remains for the unborn. In a stunningly underhanded move, a radical amendment to the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill — now Clause 191 — was passed, effectively decriminalising abortion on demand, up to birth, when self-induced by the mother.

The amendment, tabled by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, was passed by an overwhelming majority of 379 to 137. It reads: “No offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.” This deceptively simple line has devastating consequences. It removes all criminal penalties for any woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy at any stage, including in the final days before natural labour.

The proposed legal change does not merely relax abortion restrictions — it abolishes them altogether for self-administered abortions. Whether the child is 6 weeks or 36 weeks gestated, no crime will be deemed to have occurred. While some MPs claimed this would merely protect women from prosecution under outdated Victorian laws, in reality it strips unborn children of any legal consideration and places women beyond the reach of laws that were, at the very least, meant to protect both life and health.

Hijacked Legislation, Silenced Public
This sweeping change was passed not through a dedicated abortion bill, but as an amendment to a crime bill designed to address public order and policing. The public had no prior notice. There was no manifesto commitment. There was no ethical review. There was no wide parliamentary inquiry. There was not even a full Commons debate — the clause passed after just 43 minutes of discussion.

This is no way to legislate on a matter that affects the very definition of human life and legal personhood.

Abortion advocates have long sought to redefine abortion not as a moral or medical tragedy, but as a private entitlement. Decriminalisation is the final step in that process — and the most dangerous. By removing abortion from the criminal law entirely, Clause 191 eliminates any legal recourse should an unborn child be deliberately killed at term by its own mother. It also opens the door to coercion and abuse: nothing in the clause prevents a controlling partner or family member from pressuring a woman into such an act, nor does it provide safeguards against reckless self-use of unregulated pills or instruments.

The Lords’ Crucial Role
The bill now moves to the House of Lords. In its current form, Clause 191 stands. It is now the duty of Peers to examine it, challenge it, and if necessary, strike it out altogether. The Lords have historically served as a moderating force, especially on matters of conscience and life. In a case where democratic transparency has been so plainly violated, that role becomes even more critical.

The Government must not be allowed to wash its hands of this, claiming the amendment was backbench-led. The Prime Minister allowed the vote. The front benches of both main parties overwhelmingly supported it. The cries of public outrage now falling on Peers’ ears are a result of political cowardice and media silence.

There is time to act. No date has yet been set for the Lords stages of the bill, but the pro-life community is mobilising. Tools for writing to members of the Lords are now available, encouraging citizens to print and post physical letters — a method more impactful than emails. Already, moral voices are being raised across denominational and political divides. This is not a “religious issue” or a “women’s issue.” It is a matter of legal justice, public safety, and the moral character of our nation.

A Disgrace in a Civilised Society
Whatever one’s views on abortion under existing law, the idea that a baby of eight or nine months may be legally killed in the womb without any possibility of criminal prosecution — and that this could be permitted without medical supervision or legal oversight — should horrify every civilised conscience. To legalise such acts is to accept barbarism as policy.

Clause 191 must be rejected. The unborn have no voice in Parliament. The Lords must become that voice. Their refusal to act would not only enshrine abortion up to birth in law — it would confirm that in Britain, the right to life is no longer assumed to begin before birth at all.

This is not compassion. This is collapse.

Take Action: Write to a Lord Today
An online tool is available to help you send a letter to a randomly assigned Peer. The letter will be emailed to you for printing and posting. Personalised letters carry the most weight. Use the briefing materials available and speak from the heart.

It may be one letter among many — but each could help restore a sense of decency to a country losing its moral bearings. 🔝

1. Hansard, House of Commons, 17 June 2025, Division on Amendment NC1.
2. Amendment NC1 became Clause 191 upon adoption into the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill.
3. The clause text and voting record are available via the UK Parliament website.
4. Public legal commentary on the amendment has been published by legal experts including ADF UK and Christian Concern.

---

A See Impeded, a Church Divided, a Papacy Restored?
Professor Eric Thaddius Walters on Canon Law, Benedict’s Resignation, and the Hidden Conclave Crisis

Based on interviews with Lionel on the Lionel Nation YouTube channel, July 2025

In a series of striking interviews conducted in July 2025 on the Lionel Nation YouTube channel, Professor Eric Thaddius Walters—a respected patristic scholar and canonist—unfolded what he believes to be the most consequential ecclesial misjudgment in modern Church history: the misinterpretation of Pope Benedict XVI’s 2013 resignation. His argument: that the Church entered a state not of vacancy (sede vacante), but of impediment (sede impedita), and that this juridical error led to a decade of canonical and sacramental uncertainty that only now, perhaps, has been silently rectified.

The Invalid Resignation: Munus vs Ministerium
Walters begins with a forensic analysis of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation declaration on 11 February 2013. Citing Canon 332 §2 of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici, he notes that a valid papal resignation must entail a renunciation of the munus—the office or divine mandate of the papacy—not merely its exercise. Benedict, in his Latin Declaratio, relinquished only the ministerium:

“…declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae… renuntiare.”¹

This, Walters insists, was not a juridically sufficient act. Citing canonical authorities such as Cardinal Raymond Burke and theologians like Fr. Stefano Violi, he affirms that munus is ontologically distinct from ministerium, the former being necessary for the validity of resignation.² Thus, according to Walters, Benedict XVI remained Pope in the eyes of God and of canon law until his death in 2022.

The Impeded See: Sede Impedita
The failure to recognize this distinction, Walters argues, plunged the Church into a state of sede impedita as defined in Canon 335:

“When the Roman See is impeded… nothing is to be altered in the governance of the Church.”³

Under this canon, a pope who is unable or unwilling to exercise his office—due to coercion, infirmity, or other grave cause—but has not resigned, renders the See juridically impeded, not vacant. Walters likens this to a theological eclipse: the See of Peter remained intact but obscured.

Illegitimacy of the 2013 Conclave
If Benedict remained pope, then any conclave convened before his death would be canonically invalid. Walters notes that the 2013 conclave began before the alleged resignation had even taken canonical effect, citing the Vatican’s own timeline error: the announcement that the See would be vacant as of 8:00 p.m. on 28 February does not account for the ancient canonical reckoning of time, in which a day ends at midday.⁴

Further, Canon 359 states:

“During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction unless it concerns the election of a new Pope.”⁵

Walters insists this implies that no conclave may be convoked until the See is truly vacante—which, if Benedict never resigned, it never was.

Symbolic Clues: The Semiotics of a Crisis
Throughout the interviews, Walters repeatedly turns to what he calls the “semiotics of ecclesial rupture.” He recalls that in 2013, no coat of arms appeared on the balcony when Francis emerged; the traditional tiara was absent, and the new pope’s words to the faithful began with “Buona sera” rather than a blessing.⁶

By contrast, when Pope Leo XIV appeared on the loggia in May 2025, his heraldic arms were prominently displayed before his entrance—featuring the tiara and crossed keys of full Petrine authority.⁷

“The signs were silent in 2013. In 2025, they spoke with force. What was omitted has been restored.”⁸

Walters posits that this heraldic and liturgical symbolism may indicate a quiet but deliberate course correction, one executed not by declaration, but by sacramental and symbolic reversal.

The Role of Leo XIV: Restoration Through Election?
Walters is cautious not to declare Francis an antipope or Leo XIV a counter-pope. However, he suggests that Leo XIV may have been elected only by legitimate cardinals—that is, those appointed before 2013 by Benedict or John Paul II. This would constitute, in his view, a “valid conclave following the true death of Benedict XVI,” and hence the first legitimate papal election in over a decade.

The choice of the name “Leo”—evoking Leo the Great (who defined the papacy’s dogmatic authority at Chalcedon), Leo III (who crowned Charlemagne), and Leo XIII (who reasserted the papacy’s social teaching and condemned modernism)—is seen as deeply intentional.⁹

“The name Leo is no accident. It is a declaration of doctrinal continuity, not a signal of pastoral novelty.”¹⁰

The Time Constraint: 2036 and the Cardinalate Crisis
Walters introduces a striking eschatological note when he observes that by 2036, only three cardinals created before 2013 will remain under the canonical voting age of 80. This, he argues, sets a de facto deadline for lawful papal succession.¹¹ If no valid conclave is convoked by then—or if the crisis remains unacknowledged—Walters warns that the sacramental structure of the Church itself could become gravely compromised.

Sacramental Fallout and Canonical Consequences
If Bergoglio was never pope, Walters asks, what becomes of:

• The bishops he appointed?
• The sacraments those bishops conferred?
• The ecclesial laws and dispensations he promulgated?

He references the principle ex defectu intentionis—a defect in the necessary form or intent of sacramental acts.¹² If episcopal appointments were invalid, then so too may be ordinations, confirmations, and even absolutions downstream of them.

Such a rupture, he insists, cannot be healed merely by will or sentiment. It requires canonical correction, public or private.

Conclusion: A Church at a Crossroads
In these interviews, Professor Walters does not call for schism, nor does he incite rebellion. Rather, he issues a solemn and scholarly warning: that the juridical confusion following Benedict’s abdication—compounded by a failure to distinguish between form and function—may have led the Church into a long interregnum under the illusion of normality.

Pope Leo XIV, he believes, offers a chance—perhaps the final one—to restore juridical clarity and sacramental certainty.

“Symbols have spoken enough. The Church needs words—true, binding, apostolic words.”¹³

The question remains: will Rome speak? 🔝

1. Benedict XVI, Declaratio, 11 February 2013: “declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae… renuntiare.”
2. Cf. Stefano Violi, La rinuncia di Benedetto XVI: tra storia, diritto e coscienza, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2013; Raymond L. Burke, “On the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI,” various statements and interviews 2013–2020.
3. Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), Can. 335.
4. Walters, Interview I, Lionel Nation, July 2025. See also the ancient Roman and canonical reckoning of liturgical hours (horae canonicae).
5. Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), Can. 359.
6. Walters, Interview I, Lionel Nation, July 2025. Observation corroborated by Catholic media reports from 13 March 2013.
7. Public appearance of Pope Leo XIV, May 2025; heraldic details described by multiple commentators and in Walters, Interview II.
8. Walters, Interview II, Lionel Nation, July 2025.
9. Cf. Denzinger 1432–1439 (Leo I); Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni (Leo III); Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII, 1891.
10. Walters, Interview III, Lionel Nation, July 2025.
11. Walters, Interview III; demographic analysis of living cardinals under 80 by creation date (based on 2025 Vatican data).
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 64, a. 8; see also Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, 1947.
13. Walters, Interview I.

---

---

🔝

Archbishop Mathew’s Prayer for Catholic Unity
Almighty and everlasting God, Whose only begotten Son, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd, has said, “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”; let Thy rich and abundant blessing rest upon the Old Roman Apostolate, to the end that it may serve Thy purpose by gathering in the lost and straying sheep. Enlighten, sanctify, and quicken it by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, that suspicions and prejudices may be disarmed, and the other sheep being brought to hear and to know the voice of their true Shepherd thereby, all may be brought into full and perfect unity in the one fold of Thy Holy Catholic Church, under the wise and loving keeping of Thy Vicar, through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth God, world without end. Amen.

🔝

---

Old Roman TV

OLD ROMAN TV Daily Schedule Lent 2025: GMT 0600 Angelus 0605 Morning Prayers 0800 Daily Mass 1200 Angelus 1205 Bishop Challoner’s Daily Meditation 1700 Latin Rosary (live, 15 decades) 1800 Angelus 2100 Evening Prayers & Examen 🔝

🔝

---

Litany of St Joseph

Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.	Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.	Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven,	have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the World,	have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit,	have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God,	have mercy on us.
Holy Mary,	pray for us.
St. Joseph,	pray for us.
Renowned offspring of David,	pray for us.
Light of Patriarchs,	pray for us.
Spouse of the Mother of God,	pray for us.
Guardian of the Redeemer	pray for us.
Chaste guardian of the Virgin,	pray for us.
Foster father of the Son of God,	pray for us.
Diligent protector of Christ,	pray for us.
Servant of Christ	pray for us.
Minister of salvation	pray for us.
Head of the Holy Family,	pray for us.
Joseph most just,	pray for us.
Joseph most chaste,	pray for us.
Joseph most prudent,	pray for us.
Joseph most strong,	pray for us.
Joseph most obedient,	pray for us.
Joseph most faithful,	pray for us.
Mirror of patience,	pray for us.
Lover of poverty,	pray for us.
Model of workers,	pray for us.
Glory of family life,	pray for us.
Guardian of virgins,	pray for us.
Pillar of families,	pray for us.
Support in difficulties,	pray for us.
Solace of the wretched,	pray for us.
Hope of the sick,	pray for us.
Patron of exiles,	pray for us.
Patron of the afflicted,	pray for us.
Patron of the poor,	pray for us.
Patron of the dying,	pray for us.
Terror of demons,	pray for us.
Protector of Holy Church,	pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	spare us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	graciously hear us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	have mercy on us, O Jesus.
He made him the lord of his household	And prince over all his possessions.

Let us pray:
O God, in your ineffable providence you were pleased to choose Blessed Joseph to be the spouse of your most holy Mother; grant, we beg you, that we may be worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom on earth we venerate as our Protector: You who live and reign forever and ever.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Note: Pope Francis added these titles to the Litany of St. Joseph in his “Lettera della Congregazione per il Culto Divino e la Disciplina dei Sacramenti ai Presidenti delle Conferenze dei Vescovi circa nuove invocazioni nelle Litanie in onore di San Giuseppe,” written on May 1, 2021:

Custos Redemptoris (Guardian of the Redeemer)Serve Christi (Servant of Christ)Minister salutis (Minister of salvation)Fulcimen in difficultatibus (Support in difficulties)Patrone exsulum (Patron of refugees)Patrone afflictorum (Patron of the suffering)
Patrone pauperum (Patron of the poor)

---

🔝